Talk:Allies of World War I/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romania and Serbia "minor"?

Would anyone object if I moved Romania and Serbia to the "major Allies"? World War I casualties states that they suffered 335,706 and 450,000 military deaths respectively; this measure puts them in a different class to the rest of the "Other significant allies" group; it even puts them ahead of the USA (126,000 military deaths) and in the same ballpark as the UK and Italy (703,000 and 650,000 respectively). Grant65 | Talk 13:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they were treated as minor players at the time. Keep the listing as minor. Rjensen 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The difference has long since been removed from the article. Who is supposed to have "treated" them as minor? Grant65 | Talk 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Britain Russia and France treated them as minor. They were not consulted on any major decisions. Rjensen 07:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This is plain antiserbian racism. Of course Serbia was a major player, the war started due in part to Russia protecting Serbia. Saying it was not consulted, while the respect for its borders led to the whole part is ridiculous. Russia and England did not consult either, especially after Bolsevik revolution. In fact, Russia threatened to withdraw from war if weapons were not send in to Serbia by France, for which Serbia payed. This article is racist antiserbian mess!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.217.198 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Serbia lost many more people in proportion to their size than either Britain or France. Furthermore, Serbia was the first of the Allied powers to declare war. Whether the other major Allied Powers recognized the sacrifice of the Serbian people is irrelevant. Even so, I would argue that Austria-Hungary came to the recognition that Serbia was more than a "minor" as it took her two years (after Bulgarian assistance) to subdue the small Balkan country. Tyler Durgen 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would object to moving Romania to the "major Allies" because Romania was an active member of the Allies for only a few months and did not have a significant impact on the war. If anything, Romania's defeat only served to further demonstrate the superiority of the tactics of the Central powers. Tyler Durgen 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbia as well as Romania were minor allies, because they were minor powers. This is a purely taxonomic classification and has nothing to do with their fighting abilities or percentage of causualties etc. Although one might argue about what exactly constitutes a major power, there was at the time (and now) a clear understanding of who was in the major power club: Russia, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, Britain, and the USA; The Ottomans by tradition and courtesy, and perhaps the Japanese. But no one else. Everyone else is a minor power or less. All the major powers had real battlefleets and large armies and the population and industry to sustain them; all the minor powers did not. The weakest of the major powers were the Ottomans, the Austrians, and the Italians. But the first two fielded large armies on two or three separate fronts, the latter only on one front but in great numbers. The Serbians did not have the military force to do anything of the sort. Herostratus 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh?! They were "minor allies, because they were minor powers. This is a purely taxonomic classification..." Taxonomy is always based somehow on criteria, it isn't arbitrary.
Can someone explain to me how Romania and Serbia came to have 335,706 and 450,000 military deaths respectively if they were "minor"? Grant65 | Talk 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
the number of deaths does not measure importance, it just shows how strong their enemies were. Rjensen 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it means they were small countries "hitting above their weight". No country which loses soldiers equivalent to more than 30 divisions in a war is a "minor" player. Grant65 | Talk 09:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Grant65 Allow me to explain why they are minor. Serbia’s 450,000 deaths shows the size and strength of their armies. In a war of attrition, like WW1 was, that counts enormously. If you compare Serbia with other countries like the USA that had only 60,000 deaths, the time involved and the actual battlefield contribution of both countries it will show who the minor and who the major contributors to the war had been. The problem is that the ones in control of the buttons here at Wiki are not Serbian and that there has always been efforts made to over inflate contributions by certain counties and lessen the contributions by other countries in both world wars and there always will be. Brocky44 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop praising the Germans,there is nothing to praise. They were going against a Balkan country, that had to defend the longest front in Europe, against ALL of the Central Powers, with poorly trained, equipped and unexperienced army and with almost negligeable help. Like what do you expect? Really! The Germans were 22% of the total invasion force...do you even know what that means? That they were little over 110,000. And, according to this article, their losses until December 1916 were of 60,000 casualties, so over half of their forces! Tell me, what is impressive here? Huh? Besides, the early defensive Romanian victories on the Jiu and Prahova Valleys only show that it was actually the sheer length of the front and numerical and technical superiority of the enemies that actually led to Romania's defeat. Romanian forces performed very well in places of adequate concentration, often managing to repel the enemy. They were just too strained to put up effective resistence, and thus were forced to withdraw. Moreover, the general objective of the Central Powers failed: taking Romania out of the war. The country remained in the war for one more year, tying down 1 million Central Powers forces and inflicting them their worst defeat in the East in 1917 and probably the whole war! The Germans had difficulty beating back Romania in 1916, it's obvious that they didn't stand a chance in front of a properly trained, equipped and experienced Romanian Army. You should praise the Romanians, who took on all of the Central Powers and managed to remain on the map, inflicting heavy losses in the process. Praise their bravery when everything seemed to be lost (Prunaru Charge is a pretty good example), and their never-ending hope. Not the Germans, because this isn't about them, and they didn't even do anything worth praising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.125.237 (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus Dear dismissive racist, let me inform you that Romania fought against ALL of the Central Powers, on the largest front in Europe and managed to remain on the map, tying down a million of them! In 1917, it managed the greatest Allied advance in Europe for that year, and inflicted the Germans their only defeat in the East when their casualties were actually higher and also a German commander killed in action! Japan for instance fielded less troops that Romania, and it's contribution was little more than a token, yet you still call it a major player! No, you my friend need to distinguish between "Main Belligerent" and "Great Power", because they're two different things! This stuff is not nailed in, "minor" powers can play roles on par, or even greater than the "Great" Powers! War contributions should not be threatened by the country's status in general or before the war. Judge by merits and contributions, not by statuses! Because "they were minor belligerents because they were minor powers" is getting really really old, and really really RACIST! And if you really want to get technical, the Powers officially promised and assumed to give Romania equal status at the coming Peace Conference, effectively making Romania a de jure major belligerent! The fact that eventually they decided to be selfish and dismissive, much like you, and assume all decision makings for themselves is a wholly different story! I really don't know why they never consult us!..The double consecutive election of Romanian Nicolae Titulescu as President of the League of Nations shows that Romanian leadership is just as good, if not better. Afterall, we only want to do good, to improve things! But we are not allowed because some people are selfish, dismissive and arrogant, and ultimately that only hurts them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.87 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen Herostratus Look, I cleared any doubt that Romania was a major ally. Starting with the official designation (Romania was officially granted equal status with the Allied Powers, and equal status with the major belligerent equals major belligerent) and continuing with her troop strength with the fronts she fought on, industry and technological achievements, her impact on both sides and combat record. Please read my edit. I'm pretty sure this clears any doubt that Romania was a major belligerent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.118.244 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

San Marino

This article gives a date for San Marino declaring war on Austria, but other articles say that San Marino remained neutral during the war (though Austria broke off relations with the republic because of a San Marino hospital station being sent to the Italian front). Can anyone provide a reference for the supposed declaration of war by San Marino? If not, maybe it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.36.218 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabia

Wasn't Arabia an Ally of Britain, and an enemy of the Turkish Empire? The map says they were neutral....--Fox Mccloud 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look closer, the south western and north eastern edges of the Arabian peninsular are orange, indicating that those areas were part of the Ottoman Empire. The interior was so lacking in people and (so it was believed) resources, that it was under tribal leadership. The Arabs, whom the British promised a pan-Arab state (including present day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq) rebelled against the Turks. See Arab Revolt. Grant65 | Talk 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to see someone noticed this message. :) I thought no one would reply and let this page stay that way for years to come. Now I get to the point: That would make them an ally of Britain, and so the grey part of Arabia, that is the part of Arabia not owned by the Turks, should be green because they were an allied nation, not neutral.--Fox Mccloud 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabia wasn't a country at that time. It was occupied by Arab nomads who did not participate in the war. The Arabs that fought in the war lived inside the Ottoman Empire.CHSGHSF 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) need a v-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.135.3 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not really fir with your argument, but the link to Romania takes you to the Kingdom of Romania. Shouldn't it lead to Romania in WWI? THe link has alot of info and that should be moved..--Pathfinder1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.77.215 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus

Cyprus was in the hands of the British by the time of WW1. The map shows it as part of the Central Powers.

The map shows the borders of 1911, not 1914. It should be changed. Valentinian (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Supplies

I cite: While Norway was neutral, British pressure and anti-German sentiment in the population enabled the Norwegian government to favour Britain in matters concerning the large Norwegian shipping fleet and food supplies. There are several countries that supported Allies or Central Powers in various ways. But still, they were neutral. Or we cite them all, or we erase this sentence (as I think we should do). gala.martin (what?) 12:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Grant65 | Talk 06:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Since I did not receive any other comment, I am going to be bold and erase the sentence cited before. gala.martin (what?) 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominions of the British Empire

(Copied from User_talk:Rjensen)

A few points: 1. It is relevant to point out that the Dominions did not have independence at the time and that they did later, a major difference between WW1 and WW2. 2. You have removed the sentence: "However, Dominion governments did withdraw elements of their forces from time to time." Is there a reason for this? 3. If you mention the war cabinet there is no need to mention "British generals", who were also answerable to the war cabinet. If we mention the "British generals" we should mention that, after April 1918, all of the Allies were commanded by Ferdinand Foch. Grant65 | Talk 09:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the thoughtful comments. 1) Lots of things happened after 1918. 2) not sure what that sentence means--if it means Canada did X in 1917, then it should day that. 3. The Dominion forces were at all times under the control of British generals, who in turn were controlled by a war cabinet that had dominion representation. (not to mention Foch's role in 1918) Rjensen 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying.
1. "Lots of things" aren't a major difference between the make up of the Allies in WW1 as opposed to WW2.
2. It means that while the Dominion governments did not have operational control of the forces, they could and did remove them from front line duties. Which is logical since they also organised recruiting in their own countries.
3. Fair enough. Grant65 | Talk 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
on #1, it's hard enough to cover ww1 in this article without trying to explain what happened in 1931 (so don't mention it--no one in 1918 knew about the 1931 decision anyway); on #2, I'm not sure what example you have in mind. I can't think of any off hand. Rjensen 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to keep the list of countries as a list. And we also missed creation of the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917. Dominion governments did control personnel and their deployment. For example, in spite of British resistance, the New Zealand government insisted on bringing whole units home for leave. Australia resisted British pressure to introduce conscription and use of the death penalty within its forces. No Australian serviceman was executed during WW1. Grant65 | Talk 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


The article states that Late in the war, Australian and Canadian units were grouped in their own separate army corps. The Canadian Corps was established september 1915.

It also says the Dominions did not have independent foreign or defence policies during World War I. The constitution of the new Dominion of Canada, 1867, gave the federal government control over all aspects of defence.

It also says the Dominions did not have operational control of their personnel. What does this mean?

Brocky44 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That the tail wagged the dog?--Woogie10w 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It means that at all times Canadian and Australian commanders followed orders issued by senior British generals. But look at the bright side: the were the best FOLLOWERS in the whole war. Rjensen 07:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Brocky, Rjensen is right. But you make a good point about defence and I've removed the statement that Dominions did not control defence policy, which was plainly wrong. The Statute of Westminster (1931) gave the Dominions independence in foreign policy, but did not deal with defence, which was already in their ambit. We shouldn't mistake the Dominions' accession to close cooperation and operational control, prior to 1931, for British control of defence. I mean part of the payoff for Britain in granting Dominion status was savings in expenditure on the defence of colonies. Grant | Talk 07:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Grant. Sorry it took long to get back. So if Rjensen is right, then if Canadian and Australian commanders did not always follow orders issued by senior British generals would it mean that the Dominions did have operational control of their personnel? Brocky44 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on what they were "not following". Did you have a specific example/s in mind? Grant | Talk 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

“AT ALL times Canadian and Australian commanders followed orders” I would think that making a blanket statement like that should be rightly countered by just one instance of not following orders although there are probably many.

You may know the example of the battle of Hamel. American troops were then attached under the British and French for training and Monash included the Americans that were under his Australians in his battle plans. Pershing refused the Americans taking part in any action because he thought they were not yet ready and Haig informed Monash that the battle would go ahead without them. The Americans didn’t have a big part in the battle but Monash did have a role planned for them which just couldn’t be dropped at the last minute and Monash simply said “no Americans no battle” Haig informed Pershing that they would be taking part and you know the rest. Blackmail? Maybe. But Monash did not follow an order.

In June 1917 Currie received orders to proceed to the area of Lens and to draw German attention and reserves away from Flanders which was then the third Battle of Ypres. Haig ordered that “all ground taken in any raid must be held by rifle and bayonet alone if no assistance is obtainable from other arms.” Currie felt that the order would mean needless casualties to his troops and therefore ignored the order and issued instructions for immediate withdrawal after the series of destructive raids that he planned. Currie was therefore able to hit hard without being hurt bad and weakened the German positions enough that they had to pull back their lines at one point.

Around the same time First Army plans, which were more detailed than usual possibly because of Currie being new to command of the Corps, called for the Canadians to take the town of Lens. Currie disagreed again and tried to convince Horne, in command of the First Army that Hill 70 which flanked Lens was more important strategically than the town and should be the objective. Haig was called in to resolve the argument and after predicting that the German’s would never let the Canadians have the hill let alone be able to drive off the inevitable counter attacks that would follow told Currie to go ahead with his own plans provided the attack was underway by August 4. Currie postponed the assault until August 15 when he felt the weather was perfect. Hill 70 was taken and 21 German counter attacks were beaten off, many with very large forces, between the 15 and 18th. The aim of keeping German troops, 5 divisions, from Flanders was achieved and the strategic Hill 70 was taken. Brocky44 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but I'm sure that there are also examples where UK corps, divisional and more junior commanders also disobeyed or disregarded Haig and/or Foch. Grant | Talk 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You’re probably right although I wonder how many UK officers were reprimanded, court marshaled. It was a bit different for the Dominions and their Commanders because of being a national contingent from another country and out of the control of the British. They may have been British at the start of the war but by the end nationalism had evolved and from both the political and military view Canada had last say in it’s involvement of the war in total control of it’s own forces. The British could protest but that’s as far as it would go. From as early as 1915 Canadian politicians had aimed at becoming an ally and not just an obedient colony and by 1917 and certainly 1918 their goal, politically and militarily, was attained.

Currie had operational freedom in the corps spearhead of the First army after Amiens to the end. GHQ staff protested to one plan and Horne of the First army objected to another at Canal du Nord, Haig was involved and Currie’s plans prevailed. The First Army was supporting the Corps attacks rather than the other way around and Horne’s and Currie’s roles were essentially reversed. The staff at GHQ and Commanders had both objected to Currie’s plans and what could they do about it? Nothing. I don’t think that a British Commander at any level would get their way if Haig, GHQ staff or an Army Commander disagreed with them.

At Amiens Foch was pressuring Haig to continue the attack and both he and Rawlingson were trying to decide if the attack should continue and contemplated another full scale assault on the 11 and 12th. Currie was put off by the quickly increasing casualty rates and was convinced that further actions would be too costly. With intelligence reports and air photos he persuaded Rawlinson and suggested a planned attack further north from Arras or on the British Third Army front toward Bapaume launched with an attack on the French First Arm front to outflank the enemy on the Somme in front of Amiens. Rawlinson then convinced Haig who was also not happy about the increasing casualties realized that continuing was pointless and impressed with the solution forwarded Currie’s plan to Foch. General Monash later said that it was Currie’s argument more than anything else that influenced Haig to cancel the Amiens offensive. Currie’s role in recommending an alternate operation had an effect on the war on the western front. A different story than “just send troops” or “always followed orders”

There was also a time during the German’s March offensives of 1918 when Haig started to pull the Canadian divisions out one by one from Canadian control and put them under British control to bolster their lines. When the Corps headquarters were left with no Divisions to command Currie informed Haig that he did not object to the Corps being deployed anywhere to help stem the tide of the German advance but that they would be of more value if they fought together and under the command of his Corps headquarters. Haig objected, Currie went over his head and soon Haig was ordered to return the Divisions that were detached to Currie’s command. Haig was furious and complained about Currie’s attitude attributing it to a swelled head. In his diary Haig wrote “I could not help feeling that some people in Canada regard themselves rather as “allies” than fellow citizens in the Empire” Haig had remained completely oblivious to the development of Canadian nationalism in the war, The soldiers and others had not had not. Lord derby of the War Office warned Haig in 1917 about Canadian nationalism “We must look upon them in the light in which they wish to be looked upon rather than in the light in which we would wish to do so." Canadians were the worst of followers during the war and ended it as an ally not a colony. Brocky44 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what you are saying, and in terms of emerging nationalism, much the same goes for Australia, which resisted British requests for both the introduction of conscription and far severe and conventional forms of military discipline.
But the real issue is that with "allies", we are talking about political and not just military cooperation. At the bare minimum, the law required the Dominions to be at war with the Central Powers. If the Dominions' elected politicians and public opinion had been on the side of withdrawing their forces completely from Europe, then the Dominion governments could probably have done it, had they so wished. They would have come under immense pressure, through the UK High Commissions, Governors-General and so on, but there would have been little that the British government could have done, had the Dominions been determined.
It's a moot point because public opinion in the Dominions was generally in favour of obedience to British policy, and they retained significant forces in Europe until the armistice. In no small part this political support was due to the huge numbers of British-born people, and their children, residing in the Dominions. (From memory, I think one in five Australian soldiers at the time was UK-born.) After WW1, the Dominions certainly showed a greater inclination to disagree/disobey with British foreign policy. But they did not begin to formally break with it until after the Statute of Westminster legally allowed such differences. Grant | Talk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Poland

But seriously, I wonder whether Poland fits into the list or not. Technically speaking Poland announced her independence on the very day the cease fire was signed. On the other hand however, there were no less than 10 Polish divisions fighting on both the eastern and western fronts and all were subordinate to the Polish National Committee, itself a member of the Entente (check the article on Blue Army to read up more). Any ideas? //Halibutt 21:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include Poland as a participant, you should probably paint it orange, as a Polish state was proclaimed in 1916 by the Central Powers. But IMHO Poland participated in the war on neither side as it de facto did not exist as a state. Str1977 (smile back) 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Belgium

Belgium is counted here among the Allies, but it was Belgian neutrality violated that prompted the UK to enter the war. Hence, Belgium should be considered neutral. Str1977 (smile back) 08:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Belgium declared war when it was invaded, and operated as an Ally with its own slice of the Western Front. Rjensen 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, not all of Belgium was occupied and Belgian forces operated in France. Grant65 | Talk 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] "Belgium was not officially one of the Allies. In turn they did not consult with Belgium, but Britain, France and Russia formally pledged in 1916 that "when the moment comes, the Belgian government will be called to participate in the peace negotiations and that they will not put an end to the hostilities unless Belgium is re-established in its political and economic independence and largely indemnified for the damage which she has undergone. They will lend their aid to Belgium to assure her commercial and financial rehabilitation." It appears that for most of the war Belgian forces mainly operated in unoccupied Belgium, though some (relatively few) fought elsewhere, including the Eastern Front. It would seem helpful if Wikipedia was consistent on this point - Belgium CHOSE not to join the Allies, retaining its status as an illegally occupied neutral country, though de facto all were fighting Germany. 46.97.73.50 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC) JHB 31/3/2018

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium_in_World_War_I

Naming

Doesn't naming convention call for this article to be named "Allies (World War I)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The naming should really be "Triple Entente"; "Allies" in WWI historically refers to the Central Alliance, which was the other side. At some point Wikipedia should be fixed to recognize this, but I'm too lazy to do it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is historically inaccurate throughout and very misleading - however, when I click 'edit' to change the terminology in the introductory section, it loads a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.14.210 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an alliance doesnt automatically become "the allies" just because it includes UK, France or USA. The "allies" of WWI were the central powers not the entente. DW75 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Allies is very commonly used for the World War I Allies. David Stevenson's Catastrophe, for instance, uses it. "Entente Powers" is generally only used for the three powers of the Triple Entente. "Allies" is a broader term. john k (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As has already been stated, the Central Alliance is "the allies" of WWI. Calling the Entente the allies is at best confusing and at worst falsifying. And it was NOT a commonly used name for the Entente before the era of internet and this kind of bad name spreading. I had never heard it used like this until less than 10 years ago. That it has become common NOW does not equal correct. Yes Entente is mostly used for the main powers, but then you can say "Entente and their allied" and similar which avoids making "allies" into a NAME, because that´s where it breaks apart.

DW75 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

11 years since the original disagreement, with at least here a very solid agreement that the current name is wrong, hence I will add a disputed title template. I would really prefer to not falsify history for the next generation internet users.

DW75 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Allies" includes Italy as they were party to numerous agreements, Entente does not - Allies is nondisputably an Anglocentric term and there may be different terminology in foreign language sources - probably Ottoman language sources do not call them the "Allies" - but that is the term we have for now, and the one editors will most likely search for when linking articles. Seraphim System (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It remains FACTUALLY INCORRECT. You have the central alliance vs the entente and later the entente powers(which yes, DOES include Italy). So, with your naming you have the alliance vs the allies. It's historical revisionism. Same as how suddenly in the last decade, the "Gulf war" no longer refers to the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s that kept going for far more than half that decade, but to the 90/91 war, with the original Gulf war suddenly retouched out of history because of that namechange. Names are important. Not arbitrarily CHANGING NAMES are even more important, as otherwise you are part of falsifying history. Sometimes there can be a good reason for a change, like how the Great war became World War I, but there exists no such reason for changing the name of the sides involved in this case. It promotes nothing but ignorance. Anyone who KNOWS what to search for will search for Entente, anyone who does not needs to find out the REAL THING, not something makebelief pseudohistory.

DW75 (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Serbia-The facts

Serbia had a population of 5.5 million in 1914. The total demographic population loss in 1914-18 was 700,000 including 250,000 women and 300,000 draft aged men according to L. Hersh, La mortalité causé par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.
Serbia mobolized 707,000 men in the war. Boris Urlanis estimates in Wars and Population, Moscow, 1971 total military deaths at 278,000 and 450,000 civilian deaths based on the total demographic loss in the war. --Woogie10w 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

I think that Ottoman Empire must be in this list,am I wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.214.95.162 (talk • contribs).

The Ottomans were on the other side, see Central Powers. Grant | Talk 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Effect of the Entente

Now I am not 100% certain of this, but from what I know, the sentance

"France, Russia and Britain entered World War I in 1914, as a result of their Triple Entente alliance"

is misleading, as neither the Entente Cordiale, nor the Anglo-Russian Entente , were military alliances and did not obligate Britain to declare war (that was left to the Treaty of London), unlike the Franco-Russian Alliance, like the statement implies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Say1988 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, France and Russia had the binding agreement, and as you quite rightly stated Britain, didn`t declare war until Belgium had been violated.Rockybiggs (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Portugal in WW1 but not in WW2.

Why did Portugal fight in WW1 but not in WW2. My hypothesis is that since Spain had alot of troble during WW2, Portugal may have helped Spain in her conflicts and civil war. Anyone else have something better? -Apr.26,o8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.232.209 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was wondering why Portugal is omited in this text. It seems that the editor doesn't have a clue about the reasons. It has nothing to do with Spain which was neutral and profited quite well with the European misery of 1914-1918 (Catalonia was already manufacturing among other items, plane engines for the British fighter planes, etc). The real reasons lie in Africa. Angola and Mozambique, then Portuguese Africa, had long borders with the then German Africa (nowadays Namibia and Tanzania). The German Empire was not very happy with ruling Southwest Africa (Namibia), which is basically a desert despite being very rich in diamonds. Before WW1 Germany and Britain had made a plan to jointly conquer Angola from the Portuguese. Thr plan was never implemented. However when WW1 started, German troops in Namibia soon begun to try to invade Angola without a formal declaration of war. Also in east Africa, the Germans entered Mozambique. That made Portugal an allied belligerent de facto. Officially, the war was not declared. The young Portuguese republic (Portugal had become a republic in 1910 by means of a violent coup d'etat) officially kept having formal relations with the German Empire despite the de facto war in far away southern Africa. However the relations begun to seriously deteriorate. Troops were sent to Africa in increasing numbers to fight the Germans and their allied indigenous peoples (The Germans persuaded indigenous Africans to fight against the Portuguese and other European rulers) Eventually the Portuguese managed to expel the Germans, not because the Portuguese were better at war - quite the opposite - but becuase the Germans in Africa were fewer and were cut off from Germany by the allied naval blockade. The Germans living in Portugal, as well as the Portuguese of German descent, were hit by the anti-German backlash: They were placed in concentration camps. Fearing espionage, a law was passed stripping the Portuguese nacionality of many Portuguese with German descent. This hit hard many in Portugal, who lost their nationality and had to flee to neutral Spain. After the war, that law was revoked, and many German-Portuguese got their nationality back.

The official declaration of war only happened when the German ships in Portuguese ports were confiscated. This was after a request made by the British. As retaliation Germany declared war on Portugal. Funchal, Madeira, was lightly shelled by German gun boats. The island city of Funchal is the only city of the current Portuguese territory to be bombed in a 20th century war.

Having a republican government, with strong pro-French republican sympathies, as well as having strong commercial ties with Britain, Portugal became eager to fight the Germans. An expeditionary force was sent to the Western Front. This ended in disaster for Portugal. The battle of La Lys was part of the final German offensive, and the unprepared Portuguese troops took the brunt of the German offensive in a brutal manner as it was normal in the brutal Western Front. The British started to complain about the lack of organization and discipline of the Portuguese. The Portuguese on the other hand complained that they were put in the front trenches by the British to be used as "flesh for cannon" and they did not receive adequate support by both the British and by the Portuguese military and civilian leaders. Many simply deserted and ran away from the trenches. Not being English or French, they were somehow hard to detect so as to be prossecuted for desertion. Despite Portugal being on the side of the victors, Portugal lost serious battles in WW1. After the German capitulation, Portugal got only a small piece of land from the German Southwest Africa. The Portuguese of German descent could get back the Portuguese nationality. That unfair law was revoked after the war. Portugal could manage to be neutral in WW2 (Hitler was not interested in Africa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.5.232 (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Main Allies?

Just a quick thought, i feel its wrong to include the Unitd States as a 'main ally' in the lead section, mainly because they came in only at the very end of the conflict, i think it should be removed, or at least moved out of the lead section as it misleads about the actual order of battle. Taifarious1 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Degree of Importance

With all respect, I disagree of you Taifarious, The USA came in the last year of conflict But play a decisive role on Western Front, contrary of Japan for example, it came soon in WWI but had a, in Militar terms, little effort just some degrees above Brazil.

About my Edition:

I'll suggest that countries it had a militar role ( no matter how modest ) in conflict SHOULD NOT stay in the same group of those it hadn't. So countries like Guatemala or Costa Rica it declare war but not participate militarly are in specific group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.182.146 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Norway, the neutral ally

Norway as referred to as the neutral ally during the first world war due to the pro-British policies with regards to the large Norwegian merchant fleet and fish supplies. Does this warrant mention in this article? -- Nidator T / C 15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I've temporarily reverted this edit. The intent may be good, but without supporting refs, it's a rather drastic shift of meaning.LeadSongDog come howl 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Recent edits have replaced the contemporary flag icons with modern ones. Please be careful.LeadSongDog come howl 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Foch

I'd be interested to see any evidence for the claim that Foch replaced Pétain as the commander of the French army. My understanding was always that Pétain remained the French commander-in-chief to the end of the war, but that Foch was his superior as Supreme Allied Commander in the same way that he was Haig's and Pershing's superior. You can find pictures of the four of them - if Pétain was not the French commander in chief, why is he in the pictures? I'm not sure why this error has been in this article for years, but I have done away with it. john k (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab Revolt and the Arab states involved are currently absent, they need to be included

The Arab Revolt was a major part of the Middle Eastern campaign of World War I. Various Arab states and Arab leaders allied with British and French forces to drive out Ottoman Turkish forces from Arab-populated Ottoman territories. The article needs to be redesigned to show all the participants on the Allied side. Until that is done, the present article does not represent a world view of the Allies of World War I.--R-41 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're free to redesign it yourself. Just edit your message a bit, add references, and that's it. I would suggest though not to create a whole new section about this. Just mention the Arab Revolt elsewhere in the article where it would "fit". – Wayfarer (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Irish in World War One

How can a page listing the allies of WW1 not make mention of the contribution made by the Irish (or the Scottish and Welsh as well for that matter). Although Ireland was then fully part of the UK, it would be very appropriate to sub catagorise the individual countires contribution as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.98.201 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

British Empire statistics

The statistics about the British Empire seem way off (they seem to reflect just the UK). Does anyone have better information about the Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.189.94 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nepal as separate combatant?

No cite given for the Nepalese mobilized numbers (200k) or casualties (49,823) in the table, plus given the numbers casualty ratio should be 25% not 71%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParker2005xvii-15 claims 200k mobilized Gurkhas (which probably belong under the British empire, not Kingdom of Nepal) and 20k casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.237.134 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


The GDP figure is way out, it has a dollar sign in front of it, the figure presented the pounds figure and it was 5 pounds to one dollar back then so should be over a trillion Dollars http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/ezmoneymatters/2008/03/the-truth-about.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.23.47 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Nepal as a combatant; as a former member of the Brigade of Gurkhas myself, the Gurkha regiments were part of the Indian Army (still are today). Nepal itself did not declare war on Germany in WWI, unlike WWII, when regiments of the Royal Nepalese Army (ie separate from Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army) fought in Burma.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Huge issues with the title

ok so the allies during ww1 are germany, the austro hungarian empire and the ottoman empire speaking of allied for france, britanny and usa(....) is more than a mistake it's an anachronism

Can someone explain to me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.25.12 (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of Allies

I'm less concerned with whether certain minor powers should be consider major, than on the fact that the U.K. is placed first in the list of major allies. This makes no sense - such a list doesn't respect any sort of order - alphabetical, chronological, of importance. Chuborno (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Britain was then the most economically and militarily powerful country on the earth in 1914. The American military was rising then, but it is not in the list because it was not directly part of the alliance, but was a co-belligerent. Russia until Soviet industrialization was a state that had been declining in power, an un-industrialized and largely agricultural country that lost the Russo-Japanese War and was set back by revolutions and insurgencies until the country was ripped apart by the revolutions in 1917. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.216.184 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Position of Belgium

Hello,

Can someone please confirm or provide WP:RS to support the claim that Belgium was an Ally during the conflict? Obviously, Belgian troops fought on the Allied side but when, for instance, Belgian troops were sent to fight on the Russian front, they were enrolled as volunteers of the Russian army on the basis that Belgium and Russia were not allies? Brigade Piron (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Montenegro and Serbia were client states of Russia

A client state can be a legally independent state that is recognized as being under strong political influence of another state.

I used a reliable source published by the reputable Oxford University.

Here is what the source says: "Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, Montenegro had assumed the status of a virtual Russian protectorate, with its port of Kotor serving as a base of support for the Russian Black Sea Fleet during its forays into the Mediterranean Sea. Serbia itself became a Russian client state by virtue of the two countries' anti-Turkish interests, but without in the end the political and territorial gains expected from the Russian alliance."--70.26.113.85 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia went to war to protect Serbia, not the other way around. It's more like Russia was a client state of Serbia! Also, just because a small state agrees with the policies of a big one doesn't mean it's a satellite. Montenegro and Russia had common goals, I don't see why they should not cooperate and have a strong relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.206.17 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Serbia

Serbia as "Minor affiliated state combatants", is that a joke? With as many troops as Japan, and in middle of combats, it can only be a joke adding Serbia as "Minor" combatant. Would anyone oppose me moving it up, and why? FkpCascais (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais Ofcourse they're all against it, because the Wiki is full of ignorant dismissive assholes who think that the world is made of only ~10 countries, all the rest are "negligeable". Judging by merits, instead of statuses, results in adding Serbia and also Romania to the "major" allies list. There shouldn't even exist this segregation between "major" and "minor", it's like saying "these are the countries that matter" and "these are the insignifiant ones, it doesn't matter how many troops they fielded or how important they actually were, they aren't Great Powers, they don't matter", which is a very dick mentality to begin with, and instantly makes you look like the lowest scum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.132.184 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of your explanations, that should be fixed. Although I must confess that I am not certain about "With as many troops as Japan". That's impossible because – as far as I know – Serbia had cca. 6-7 million population (today it's 8-10 million), while Japan had over 180 millions of residents - and let's say that Japan had 2-3 millions in military during the World War II.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayfarer (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Legitimacy of edits doubted

Will someone confirm whether these edits are correct or not?[1][2] @Donner60: @CAPTAIN RAJU: @Serafart: @Snow Lion Fenian: @Wayfarer: - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

They appear to be correct, though no sources are cited. British Ceylon was not part of the British Raj. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
They are correct now that Sri Lanka is identified separately as British Ceylon. Pakistan was part of India at the time and some Indian units in World War I had soldiers from that part of India which would become Pakistan. Ceylon apparently has occasionally been connected with India in some texts but it was a separate British colony. Since all British Empire, commonwealth states, colonies, dominions, etc. were technically at war when the United Kingdom declared war on Germany, Ceylon would have been a belligerent against Germany as well. Whether Ceylon participated in any way other than as a way station for troops moving to the theaters of battle from other places, such as Australia and New Zealand, or with port facilities for the British Navy, is something I cannot identify, even after doing over an hour of research. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Donner60: Probably this article has the details. I am supposed to have access to the full text but for some reason it won't load for me. Zerotalk 04:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: @TheMagnificentist: I should have pinged TheMagnificentist with my first post but now that there is more information, it may be more interesting. Thanks for the info, Zero. The title alone confirms that Ceylon had volunteer soldiers in World War I. Now that you have shown some better key words to use, I found a visible web page with some information which also confirms that Ceylon volunteers fought in World War I, https://www.scribd.com/document/24687800/Ceylon-World-War-1-Dead. Donner60 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allies_of_World_War_I&diff=prev&oldid=741905789
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allies_of_World_War_I&diff=next&oldid=741905789

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Allies of World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

De facto/de jure belligerents

While reading this article I couldn't help but notice that the numerous states that declared war against one or more central powers without actually committing troops to the war effort. Although these nations do not need individual sections or anything like the actual belligerents have, I can't help but think a single section could cover all states that talked the talk without walking the walk, whether because they wouldn't or couldn't. Being a highly inexperienced editor I have no idea how/where/whether this would be done, but should someone that knows what they're doing have a go? On a completely different and unrelated note, do you think that alongside the "Succeeded by: Allies of WWII" should be a "Preceded by: Triple Entente"? GeorgmentO (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Update Participants

I've done a lot of work in updating this article; couple of things;

Romania; this article focuses on why countries entered the war, not what their militaries used to fight with, so much of the original content belongs elsewhere;

Emirates of Nejd and Hasa and Idrisid Emirate of Asir; these were allies of Britain only, not even recognised as countries by the others and do not belong in this list.

Other belligerents;countries that declared war on Germany include most of South and Central America, which did so because their ships sailed in convoys eg Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras etc. So we need to draw the line somewhere.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes made to British Empire

I appreciate the edit because it's useful to clarify these issues but I have a number of problems with the rewrite;

First, the change made does not adequately reflect the long-standing British concern about Belgium and Northern France (it went back to Elizabeth I) while the reference by Nilesh Preeta does not support the rewrite. This is a fundamental point which in my view must remain as is; Britain went to war over Belgium for its own strategic defence, not an altruistic moral obligation to help out France which is still a view peddled by some Brits ie we bailed you out in 1914 and 1939 etc.

Second; The Liberal Party was identified with internationalism and free trade, and opposition to jingoism and warfare. By contrast the Conservative Party was identified as the party of nationalism and patriotism; Britons expected it "to show capacity in running a war. Even if true (and I think it's a massive simplification), it is not relevant to the Liberal decision to go to war, makes no sense (ie the anti-war Liberals went to war to stop the pro-war Tories getting into government) and does not reflect the main issue ie Ireland was in a near state of civil war. It's like mentioning the War on Terror but leaving out 9/11.

Bonar Law told Asquith 'I'm going to be really bloody in this session.' The reason Asquith wanted to keep the Tories out and the Liberals united had nothing to do with Liberal internationalism or Tory pro-war but everything to do with Ireland.

It also fundamentally mis-states the case; 'Splendid isolation' was after all a Tory policy. In 1911, Lloyd George's Mansion House speech in which he threatened war that caused Germany to back down. Staying out of European affairs has been a Tory policy since the 17th century, was the backdrop to Appeasement in the 1930s and echoes today in Brexit.

Third; Liberal voters demanded peace, but they also were outraged when the Germans treated Belgian neutrality as a worthless "scrap of paper" (in the words of the German chancellor ridiculing the Treaty of London (1839)) I keep taking this out because Bulow certainly said this, there is no evidence it was widely known prior to Britain declaring war and the way it is positioned makes it seem that this was a prime cause of the shift in mood.

I know its powerful and underlines the continuing power even today of British propaganda. I use it too; we talk about 'violating Belgium's neutrality' - another trope in British propaganda :).

Happy to discuss.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ireland as central factor??? who says so? I believe that Ireland/Ulster issue was postponed till later and did not play a role in decision for war. Biography of Asquith (Spender & Asquith vol 2 p 55) says ""But on the day the conference [on Home Rule] broke up, the Government were informed of the terms of the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia, and when 30th July came, there were other things to think about. By common consent the controversy was suspended at that moment." Edward Grey in his famous speech Aug 3 1914 said Ireland was NOT a factor. He said: "The one bright spot in the whole of this terrible situation is Ireland. [Prolonged cheers.] The general feeling throughout Ireland, and I would like this to be clearly understood abroad, does not make that a consideration that we feel we have to take into account.[Cheers.]" Grey text is at https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/battles/sir-edward-greys-speech-on-the-eve-of-war-3-august-1914/ Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Belgium was a factor for a large faction of Liberals who they would only support a war to aid Belgium. When Germany issued its ultimatum to Belgium on August 3 they voted for war the same day. However for the most important Liberal leaders--Asquith, Grey, Lloyd George, Haldane and Churchill, defense of France was the main issue not Belgium. They were ready to resign if the cabinet did not vote for war, which would deeply split the party and force a coalition with the Unionists. see Bentley B. Gilbert, "Pacifist to interventionist: David Lloyd George in 1911 and 1914. Was Belgium an issue?." Historical Journal 28.4 (1985): 863-885. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
You cannot refer to British domestic politics between 1910-1914 without reference to Ireland. That's why the German ambassador claimed Britain would be unable to intervene. Churchill says himself about gradually refocusing on Europe and not Fermanagh; it was key to Irish responses to the war. The Germans landed one million rounds of ammunition in Ulster in March 1914; four of my great-uncles from Belfast died on the Somme because they thought they were ensuring a separate Ulster. Thousands of other Irishmen died on the Somme because they thought they were ensuring a united independent Ireland.
I did not say 'Ireland played a decision in war' because what I've said a few times is Britain was going to war anyway - for valid strategic reasons. And I've also said (re your second point) that Asquith and Grey knew that Britain was morally and strategically committed to France. So this isn't a dispute about that.
Ireland was a key factor in why Asquith and Grey were willing to wait until Belgium was invaded, rather than simply saying 'We'll back you up' to the French immediately. And that was because of the perceived need to keep the Liberals united, because they all thought they'd be back again in six months. Think todays Tory Party's 20-40 year struggle over Europe and that's Ireland for the Liberals.
Grey was selling the war to his party and the Tories; I can point you to exactly the same sentiments made by French, German, Austrian and Russian politicians for exactly the same reason. The Curragh incident was about the only time since 1688 that the British military intervened directly in politics; people were scared. What you should be asking is since he didn't mention Scotland, Wales or South Africa (where there was an actual Boer revolt), why would he take the time to mention Ireland? Simple answer - because it was on everyone's minds.
We don't disagree on why Britain went to war in 1914; but the challenge has always been to understand why it took them so long. It has very little to do with the 'Tory- pro-war, Liberal-pacificist' idea and everything to do with keeping the Liberals together so they could finally get Ireland off the agenda and sort out dealing with the challenge from the Labour Party.
This matters to me because I'm trying to get away from the 'We didn't have to go to war in 1914 and we only did so because we're so @##%ing moral.' Its important to how we interpret the world today.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Having thought about it, we're not really disagreeing on much; I added the stuff about Britain's moves to end isolation and the provisions of the 1839 Treaty, precisely because Belgium only made it a lot easier and various commentators argue we were committed anyway. So we're only diverging on why the Liberals delayed so long - which was Ireland. Plus, the Liberals concern about being outflanked by the Labour Party was because of the strength of pacifism on the European left in the decade before 1914; the German SPD renounced 'capitalist war' only a few weeks before voting war credits, while the French Socialist Jean Jaures was assassinated due to his opposition to it.

Robinvp11 (talk)

the Belgium issue = it's the only way to get a Liberal vote for war. Those folks were ONLY interested in the legalities--they felt UK had a legal DUTY to protect Belgium. issues of trade etc irrelevant and did not matter in 1914 and should not be in the article. Those folks thought Lloyd George was their spokesman--a false assumption--he shut up and in fact agreed with Asquith & Grey says B Gilbert. Labour Party was not much of a factor--Unionists/Conservatives taking over = the big fear of Liberals. Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


We both agree Britain's motive for going to war in 1914 was not simply the perceived moral obligation imposed by the invasion of Belgium;
We then need to explain why Britain, which spent the entire 19th century avoiding European commitments of any kind, considered Belgium so vital it gave an open-ended legal commitment of military support under the 1839 Treaty.
We both agree Asquith and co were going to war anyway but the invasion of Belgium was key to ensuring Liberal party support for the war; as you said 'Unionists/Conservatives taking over = the big fear of Liberals;'
We then need to explain why preserving Liberal unity was so important the French suspected they going to be sold down the river (an impression that arguably never went away and persisted into 1939). Saying 'Partisanship' doesn't help, since we can all agree that on the whole political parties who have power like to hang on to it, while arguing the anti-war Liberals went to war to stop the pro-war Tories getting in makes little sense.
With all due respect, I've provided considerable detail on my answers but the quotes you've provided have not addressed these. I'm happy to discuss and defend but I'd prefer to avoid going round in circles.
'My answer to the first question;' Ensuring friendly control of Belgian ports was the primary British strategic priority in Europe for 400 years and central to every single European war Britain engaged in since Elizabeth I. It was the reason for the 'legal obligation' agreed in the 1839 Treaty, an issue important enough for the peace-loving Gladstone to threaten war with Prussia in 1870/1871, was behind Britain's commitment to France and over which (as you yourself have stated) Asquith, Grey and Churchill were prepared to resign over. Far from being irrelevant, Belgium's strategic importance was absolutely fundamental to this question - like the vast majority of wars, WWI was fought over strategic issues, not moral obligations and I cannot see why that appears to be so controversial.
'My answer to the second question;' At no point have I suggested either the Labour Party or Ireland were factors in the 'decision to go to war but that they were 'central to the Liberal leadership's urgent desire to keep the Liberals united and the Tories out. Again, I don't think that's a particularly controversial point.
This has been a useful discussion, because the clearer we are, the better for others using this. I don't think we disagree on the primary issues; my original edit was much shorter but if we expand it (and I have no issues with that), then we add complexity and that's where we diverge.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The Liberals were very deeply divided. If the anti-war element kept GB neutral when France was under attack, then Asquith, Grey, Churchill etc would resign either a) form a coalition with Conservatives (who were united pro-war) or b) Conservatives would take power alone. They sensed--correctly--that a divided Liberal party was doomed. So in the crucial last week or so (before Aug 4) Ireland was off the table. The Belgium issue was decided when Germany issued its ultimatum to Belgium: that is, Germany violated the 1839 treaty and forfeited British neutrality. (Steiner p 233 says: The public mood did change. Belgium proved to be a catalyst which unleashed the many emotions, rationalizations, and glorifications of war which had long been part of the British climate of opinion. Having a moral cause, all the latent anti-German feelings, that by years of naval rivalry and assumed enmity, rose to the surface. The 'scrap of paper' proved decisive both in maintaining the unity of the government and then in providing a focal point for public feeling.) The goal was not to save Belgium (that was hopeless militarily) but to save France. That happened when all but 2 (John Burns and John Morley) of cabinet supported the war and thereby kept the party united. Steiner (1977) covers this very well--please read her chapter 9 Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've read Steiner (my Modern History lecturer in the mid-80s had some very trenchant criticisms of what she termed 'Zara's tendency to overstate'). In my view, Michael Brock's book is far more detailed on the Liberal Party divisions while Roy Jenkins biography of Asquith is perhaps the best one. I've read all three including Steiner; should I be suggesting you do the same?
The Belgium issue was decided when Germany issued its ultimatum to Belgium: that is, Germany violated the 1839 treaty and forfeited British neutrality. The goal was not to save Belgium (that was hopeless militarily) but to save France.
They sensed--correctly--that a divided Liberal party was doomed.
You've made these points several times and every time, I've agreed with you; why you want me to re-read Steiner to confirm that?
I'm entitled to sound slightly irritated because I've been respectful, I've gone into considerable detail in my responses and edited to try and be clear. I feel as if we're now arguing for the sake of it.
Ireland's only in here because of your additions to my original version, which you expanded to explain why Liberal unity was so important. Those were 'Partisanship' (which could mean anything in any era) and 'keeping the pro-war Conservatives out.' I've explained several times why I disagree and provided reasons (with sources) for my position. Referring me to other sources that make points I haven't disagreed with doesn't help. I've taken out the references to why the Liberals needed to stay united and then I think this discussion should be closed.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

when looking at RS I suggest dropping Nilesh, Preeta (2014). "Belgian Neutrality and the First world War; Some Insights". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. It's not a reliable published source -- (conference proceesdings publish all the submitted papers without vetting) Worth adding however is Niall Ferguson Pity of War esp ch 3 Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me take a look - I think that's a little unfair on Nilesh, who a published historian, with tenure at one of India's best colleges and her paper was posted on JSTOR but I'll see what we have. Thanks.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s been decades since I read Zara Steiner and I don’t have a copy immediately to hand, but her book was part of an excellent series – Volker Berghahn on Germany, Keiger (he is also Poincare’s leading biographer) on France, Williamson on Austria-Hungary. Don’t remember if there was a volume on Russia (although there have been more recent ones by McMeekin et al).
I’ve been through various books about Asquith (Jenkins, Koss – the two major modern biographies) and Edward Grey (Robbins and the more recent, rather thin, one by Michael Waterhouse). They are pretty clear that the reason for delay in making a commitment to France and Belgium was not so much strategy as the need to bring Liberal Party opinion along, although they also thought that strategically it would do no harm to keep the French guessing. They don’t really mention the strategic importance of Belgium, I might add, merely that it was somewhere the Germans would have to march through to get to France. Grey no longer took much interest in domestic politics and had learned earlier in the year that he was going blind, so the July Crisis was a bit of a last hurrah for him.
As far as the claim above that Splendid Isolation had been a Tory policy, well it may have been once but as far as I can see Tory leader like Austen Chamberlain wanted a stronger entente by this stage.
I don’t think a case can be sustained that the Liberals wanted to stay in power specifically to make Ireland self-governing. Asquith had never had any great wish to bring in Home Rule – it was a long-term aspiration but had been a complete electoral albatross for the Liberals in 1886 and 1895. In the 1906 election they had shut the issue down by making clear that they weren’t going to do anything about it, a position which Asquith had repeated when he became PM IIRC. Then came the hung Parliament in 1910 and Home Rule was the price of Irish Nat support. Home Rule passed the Commons for the third and last time in May 1914 and so was due to become law under the terms of the 1911 Parliament Act, unless the Liberals could be persuaded to abandon it (eg. by Parliament refusing to authorize the continued existence of the British Army, an option which had been canvassed by hardliners) or the King to veto it (he had taken legal advice, confirming he still had the power to do so, but wisely decided to stay out of it). Basically, the Tory leadership had accepted that Home Rule was going to happen.
The sticking point was Ulster – by July 1914 talks had reached a complete impasse. Asquith had offered Carson a 6-year opt-out (ie. until after the election after next), but Carson wanted a complete opt-out. Redmond, worried about extreme opinion on his own side, was not prepared to concede this, and Asquith needed Redmond for his majority in the Commons. Asquith privately wrote to his lady friends (Venetia Stanley, Ottoline Morrell, etc) that he regarded the war as a fantastic stroke of luck which rescued him from an intractable dilemma (which is not quite the same thing as saying he went to war to get out of the mess – or at any rate if he thought so he didn’t admit it). In the end Home Rule was put on the statute book but suspended for the duration of the war, with the issue of Ulster still unresolved (September 1914). The Tories were pretty furious about this.
It seems to be taken for granted that the Liberal Cabinet would have fallen if Grey had resigned. Asquith had been planning an election for July 1914, postponed to spring 1915, but it wasn’t legally due until the end of 1915. In principle I don’t see why Lloyd George could not have formed a Cabinet with the backing of the 80 Irish Nat MP.s, but he doesn’t actually seem to have been scheming to become PM at this instant. He just thought war was coming and it was best to go along with it.
To my knowledge the most detailed study here remains Cameron Hazelhurst “Politicians at War” (1971). The first third of the book is taken up by an analysis of the July Crisis, and he gives a pretty clear picture from letters and diaries of what the politicians involved were up to – not just the major players but people like Herbert Samuel and other lesser Cabinet ministers. Everybody suspected that the Germans were probably going to come through Belgium to outflank the border forts which the French had built after the 1870 war. Most of them were just looking for an excuse to square their consciences – even John Morley, who was so old and doddery and self-contradictory that nobody paid him much attention, did not entirely rule out going to war for the sake of France. Hazelhurst has a little dig at AJP Taylor who wrote sloppily about this in essays for the general public and exaggerated the degree of Liberal anti-war feeling. Many of the Cabinet were undecided, and the Cabinet doves were actually relatively few in number and not very organized or decisive, which is why they fell in behind Grey when the chips were down. On the backbenches the loud anti-war people like Arthur Ponsonby and Noel Buxton did not have anything like as much support as they claimed or is sometimes supposed. Furthermore, Asquith and Grey did quite a skillful job of corralling opinion, or at any rate switching between emphasizing strategy and emphasizing morality, and only asking questions to which they were sure they would get the answer they wanted. The Cabinet were only asked to agree in advance to a naval commitment; the decision to deploy the BEF was (to the fury of Maj-Gen (as he then was) Henry Wilson, who had drawn up the detailed plans) not taken until the War Council a few days after the Declaration of War.
Out in the provinces it was perhaps a different story. Public opinion did genuinely get outraged about Belgium, in so far as we can tell from the newspapers, even if politicians and opinion-formers were more cynical. I dare say it was the same in the USA about submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram a few years later.
Michael Brock (intro to Margot Asquith’s diaries, mentioned above) lays great stress on Belgium’s foot-dragging, and how they might have gritted their teeth and let the Germans through if the Germans had stuck to the SE corner east of the Meuse, and how this would have left the Cabinet reluctant to intervene (“We can’t be more Belgian than the Belgians”). Hazelhurst puts little stress on this, which may be an oversight on his part, although he does mention how the British Government were keen to protect the territorial integrity of Belgium against possible German annexation, not necessarily against a quick German march-through.
Anyway, “I hope that helps” as they say. This is one of the most deeply researched topics in history, so if another book says different to the above I’m happy to read it.Paulturtle (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time - I agree with (most) of this :). If you've read through Margot Asquith's Diary, then you've done your duty - I struggled myself :) A couple of points;
Everybody suspected that the Germans were probably going to come through Belgium to outflank the border forts which the French had built after the 1870 war. 'Suspect' is the wrong word - it was viewed as a certainty. The French strategic plan was based on that assumption and there's a reason why Flanders was called the cockpit of Europe. The lines held by the French along the Ypres-Commines river line during the Nine Years War 1688-1697 were fought over again in 1914 and 1940.
(1) I'm not suggesting the Liberals only wanted to stay in power because of Ireland but Kitchener was one of the very few who thought the war would last past Xmas; Norman Angell was just one of a long series of people who 'proved' that it was economically unfeasible (which tells you all you need to know about people who chose economics as a profession). The Home Rule Bill (and the Welsh di-establishment) had finally been forced through in June and they all expected to be back arguing about Ireland in a few months time (like todays Tories who want to avoid an election until they've sorted out Brexit).
(2) People also forget the apparent depth of pacifism amongst the 'working class' and the Second International between 1900 on; the SPD urged its members to demonstrate against war three weeks before voting for war credits.
Both of these issues were important for the Liberal Party because of the growth of the Labour movement. First, as the party responsible for implementing Home Rule, they had a good chance to improve their electoral prospects in both Ireland (which would still have 42 Westminster MPs under the 1914 Home Rule Act) and places like Liverpool; the two halves of Sinn Fein only took 60% of the vote in the 1922 Irish election, even after the brutalities of the War of Independence. Second, if (as many assumed) the working class were in favour of peace, then they had to be seen to have done everything in their power to avoid war.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if one were looking for political parallels with today's politics - a Prime Minister who feels duty-bound to push through a major constitutional change which s/he did not originally support, hamstrung by the arithmetic of a hung Parliament, with elements of the "establishment" doing their best to be obstructive (army officers then; judges (at any rate in the initial idiotic judgement in the Gina Miller case, they've been a bit more sensible since then), civil servants and diplomats nowadays) - they are not hard to find. But let's stay on topic ...
I think one has to be careful to stick what the books discuss.
As far as Belgium goes, it's easy to get carried away by looking for historical patterns in terms of Britain looking to defend the "cockpit of Europe". The generals thought the Germans would almost certainly come through the Ardennes. Few, apart from Gallieni and Lanrezac, guessed that they would strike as far west as they did. Had they stuck to that SE corner of Belgium, the Belgians might well have restricted themselves to verbal protests - one of the great what-ifs of all this. When Grey was putting his case to Parliament (you can find his speech in Hansard online) he talked of the strategic naval threat to the Channel, and of the moral need to come to the aid of Belgium. He briefly mentioned that Britain had strategic interests in the independence of Belgium (this had also been briefly been touched on in a strategic discussion back in about 1911 - the only other mention I've been able to find) but he didn't dwell on them. The interest in Belgium was the moral casus belli which it helped to create and that it was somewhere through which the Germans were going to march. Nobody at this stage envisaged that there was going to be serious fighting at Ypres, or a German threat from the land to take Ostend or other places on the coast - that came in the autumn, with the Race to the Sea. There was of course fighting at Antwerp, with accompanying antics by Winston Churchill, but that too came after the declaration of war.
As for the growth of the Labour Party, this is of course something which historians, sometimes influenced by their own political biases, have debated over the years. There has always been a persuasive view that Labour seemed to be on the verge of an existential breakthrough back in about 1906-8 (defection of the Lib-Lab MPs, Colne Valley by-election etc) but that this had fizzled out by 1910-14. By then the Labour Party was not really going anywhere and Ramsay MacDonald may well have accepted a Cabinet position sooner or later. Even in 1918-22 Asquith and other leading Liberals thought their party's eclipse was temporary and that they would soon bounce back. In 1910-14 the Liberals wanted to keep up their electoral attractiveness, particularly as it was only a matter of time before the franchise was extended, but I don't think any more so than any other party at any other time. They don't really seem to have discussed it in July-August 1914, or if they did I don't see that it has made it onto the historical record.Paulturtle (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, I don't think we're disagreeing - but Grey's references simply reflect the fact that the strategic threat to Britain was hostile control of the Northern ports like Ostend and Antwerp (cf 1940-1944 to see why). Whether people considered 'fighting at Ypres' or whatever is irrelevant to that; even Gladstone warned Prussia in 1871 if they came any nearer the French northern coast, Britain would feel impelled to do something about it - without any fighting in Belgium. And as I've said before, the very fact Britain at the height of its 'splendid isolation' made a legally binding, open-ended commitment to military intervention defending Belgium tells you all you need to know. The strategic threat to France was different ie an open route into the North (hence Cockpit of Europe) but for Grey, the depth of the German penetration into Belgium determined how easy it was to make a case for intervention, not intervention itself.
Lloyd George's People's Budget was a response to the growth of the Labour Party (Roy Jenkins 'Mr Balfour's Poodle' is a good overview of his intentions). That success arguably led to the stasis of 1910-1914 but only temporarily; a century later, TonyPandy and the Cat and Mouse Act still stand as signposts marking the end of Liberal England (sic).

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allies_of_World_War_I/Archive_1&oldid=1133037916"