User talk:Werchovsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Werchovsky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  sbandrews (t) 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Causes of WW1

thanks for your work on the article - if you have time don't forget to include inline citations to show us which book/books you are using, the article is in general much lacking in these at the moment, kind regards, sbandrews (t) 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination of Franz-Ferdinand

Could you take a look at the article "Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand" and determine if it falls into the military history category? The basis for including the "Causes of World War I" as military history may also apply to it. I think you will find this article much better footnoted. Werchovsky 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Not quite B-class. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make some style changes now to this article. Please avoid editing it until I remove the {{inuse}} temp[late. This will take an hour or so. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not see your "in use" notice until I had saved.Werchovsky (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I'll carry on. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep out links like the newly added "February 3" or "October 12" links which link to pages that shed absoluately no light on the assassination. Is there any reason I should not keep removing them when they pop up? Werchovsky (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you must leave them in. They make the date appear correctly for people who have Day/Month instead of Month/Day set in "My Preferences". All day/month dates need to be wikilinked like that.--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Assassination of Franz-Ferdinand Edit

Hello, you asked me why I changed "train" by "motion" in the article about The Assassination of Franz-Ferdinand. In my opinion, "set in motion" is the correct way to mean in english "getting something started" or "giving an impulse to something". In fact, it is almost a "fixed expression", while "set in train" does not convey the idea that the assassination was the begining of something(although, many historians now believe, as tragic as it was, that is was more a pretext than a cause to WW I, but that is beside the point) [Note I will also post this answer on my own page] Boris Crépeau (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Set in train" is an ocasional British usage for this concept, but it seems to me to be largely out of favor these days. I agree that "set in motion" is the more appropriate usage now.Loren.wilton (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of WW1

I have read your message to me, and I will read your "moribund" comments. By the way, you edited my comments on the Kaiser's hurried return from his cruise of the North Sea, and you stated that this was caused by the gathering of the British fleet at Scapa Flow. Was this the reason? I thought it was due to the presentation of the Austrian Ultimatum. User:Italus 15 Nov. 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transferring Images

Werchovsky, I would appreciate it if you could tell me how images from other wikipedias can be saved on the English version? Italus 02:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am new at this too. I went to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload and filled out the form and it worked fine. I have only uploaded one image. I don't know how to move from one wikipedia to another, but I expect you could save the image on your computer and then upload it onto the english Wikipedia. If that does not sound good then you better ask someone more experienced.Werchovsky 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WW1 French Fortressess

You are correct, they would have been asked to surrender them 'as an act of good faith' so to speak, but as they rejected to pledge neutrality, it was not put to them. I had misread the source. In 'The Struggle for Mastery of Europe' (p524) Taylor does correctly state that the 'demand' would have been a subsequent one. Given the small scope of the article where I made those edits, there's not much point re-adding that information in its correct form.

In an expanded section on the diplomacy, ultimatums and declarations of war in July and August 1914 I think that the Germans designs on Toul and Verdun would offer a more complete view of the choice France had to make in accepting Germany's offer of neutrality, that is the acquiescence to German supremacy in Europe and her abdication as a Great Power, by threats of German aggression. Whilst not quite naked aggression, the German offer of neutrality was not a benevolent or real choice for a France that wished to preserve her status.

Sonnybillyboys (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what was wrong with this?

[1] I remember when this bit was put in, the wording is not great but its an important explanation of how the serbians were given no choice is it not? Which bit is questionable? sbandrews (t) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit title, it was out of sequence. That is to say, the paragraph below it took place about two weeks after the material inserted on the Austrian note of demands. The next problem is that subsequent paragraphs covered the same ground but without the same pro-Serb tilt. Finally, Serbia accepted point #10, now almost meaningless, but in regard to the other enumerated demands and demands in the preamble there were deficiencies in the Serbia response as covered in the Wikipedia article on the July Ultimatum, so it is a commone inaccuracy to say that Serbia acquiesced to all but two of the demands.Werchovsky (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anon

That seems a little unfair. The anon is a POV pusher who has no idea what he's talking about and doesn't listen to anything anyone says, but I don't think particularly it's our place to judge that he's mentally ill and needs professional help. I am getting rather sick of arguing with him, though, as he doesn't seem to listen to anything I say. This latest stuff about Belgium is particularly annoying. My personal preference would be to let him figure out if he needs professional help by himself, but to get him barred from editing wikipedia articles on WWI. john k (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lovette is driving me insane. Talk page discussion is not going to get anywhere as long as he's ranting for pages on end about international law. What is to be done, do you think? john k (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do have to thank Mr. Warchovsky for his endless patience. Someone prior alluded to John K's "profanity". Fortunately I have not yet driven him to that extreme yet. I have presented my "international law question" to Wikepedia's article "public international law". AKA "law among nations". But still no response on the discussion page. I'll let you know what they say, if they respond at all. It is not exactly a "timely" question for them to addresse. John Kenney is absolutely wrong about me being a POV pusher. I am absolutely nuetral. I explained my background from the beginning. I merely wanted to find the truth. John K can get somewhat personal with his comments (hope I have not).EdwardLovette (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Werchovsky, I was curious, you are not by chance related to Russian Minister of War, Werchovsky, are you?EdwardLovette (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Werchovsky. I have been reading your comments on my talkpage. Some areas of concern that "jump out" to me are your comments about Belgium. "there would be no way to properly blockade Germany if Belgium remained neutral". And yet Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden somehow managed to remain neutral. They managed to survive the "inconveniences" of the British blockade. Clearly Belgium likewise, could and would have also remained completely neutral as she had done in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The British navy had a complex formula regarding how much food to allow into each neutral country. And this formula was completely legal by the laws of war in effect at the time. In other words, it was completely fair play for Britain to take advantage of the fact that her navy was far superior to the German navy and use it to her advantage. Just as it was fair play for Germany to use to her advantage the fact that she had the most powerful land force on the continent.

Regarding your other Belgium related allegations, which of these allegations actually "violated" the terms of the 1839 Belgian Neutrality Treaty". Have you read that treaty?

Your second point about the Serbian March 1909 commitment. Any good attorney will tell you that any contract signed under "duress" is null and void.

Your Third point about the French arsonist. If you go into a store and shoplift, the store will "wait" until you have left their property. They do not act "prematurely".

Wikepedia "laws of war" legal experts are going to review your claims in further detail. I will post their responses on the "origins of world war one" discussion for all to see.EdwardLovette (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Werchovsky, I will keep our discussion on Internation Law off of the "orgins of World war one" discussions pages so as not to "clutter" up the page if you so desire.

I did a search on the archive.org page under "Hague" and found quite a gold mine. Here is a list of books I plan on reading shortly as time permits;

1. The first Hague convention (1912)

2. The Hague Rules (1921)

3. Arbitration and the Hague Court (1904)

4. The International Union of the Hague Conference (1918), vol one and two.

5. The Hague Peace Conference of 1899 and 1907, Vol one and two.

6. The two hague conferences and their contributions to international law.(1908)

7. The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference; Tranlations of the official texts(1920)

8. The Hague Peace Conferences and other International conferences concerning the laws and usages of war: texts of conventions with commentaries (1909)

I did an Amazon.com search. There was not that much available on this subject. A lot of the times, the books at Amazon.com are just the same books as available at Archive.org except they are not free. So, you see Mr. Werchovsky often, if you really want to learn something in detail you have to go back to primary sources available at the time because there are scant modern alternatives, which may be a by-product of book publishing economics and marketing. In other words, in 1920 people were interested in the Hague Conferences, whereas in 2008 very few people are still interested in the Hague Peace Conventions of 1899 and 1907. So John K and Loje are possibly limiting themselves pooh poohing these old books.

I do know that the Russian Czar is the leader that proposed these conferences. I also know that most or all of the attendees to these two conferences (including the U.S.A.) were supportive of both A. Disarmament and B. Use of Mediation/Arbitration to resolve disputes. There was one country opposed to disarmament and mediation/arbitration, Germany.

Germany opposed mediation/arbitration agreements because it viewed it as a "time buying measure" for any future opponents. In some ways I can understand Germany's thinking on this item. Germany opposed disarmament measures because?EdwardLovette (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than pooh pooh your sources I have decided to spend a half hour making a minimal effort to find SECONDARY sources in English that might be worth reading (not everything with an unexpired copyright is junk). Enjoy.

The United States and the first Hague Peace Conference. Ithaca, N.Y., Published for the American Historical Association [by] Cornell University Press [1962]

The United States and the Second Hague Peace Conference : American diplomacy and international organization, 1899-1914 / Calvin DeArmond Davis. Durham, N.C. : Duke University Press, 1975, c1976.

Arbitration or war? Contemporary reactions to the Hague Peace Conference of 1899. With a new introd. for the Garland ed., by Sandi E. Cooper. : New York, Garland, 1972.

International adjudications : ancient and modern history and documents together with mediatorial reports, advisory opinions, and the decisions of domestic commissions, on international claims : modern series / edited by John Bassett Moore. Buffalo, N.Y. : W.S. Hein, 1996.

Documents relating to the program of the First Hague Peace Conference : laid before the conference by the Netherland government translation. Buffalo, N.Y. : W.S. Hein, 2000.

The United States and the Origins of the World Court David S. Patterson Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 91, No. 2. (Summer, 1976), pp. 279-295.

Symposium: The Hague Peace Conferences War and International Adjudication: Reflections on the 1899 Peace Conference David D. Caron The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, No. 1. (Jan., 2000), pp. 4-30.

Symposium: The Hague Peace Conferences The Laws of War on Land George H. Aldrich The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, No. 1. (Jan., 2000), pp. 42-63.

--Loje (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Werchovsky I did a preliminary search based on Mr.Loje's list of 8 books. Here are my results;

1. Available used at Amazon.com for $45.00. Not at my local library. Not at archives.org.

2. 1976 copy at amazon.com for $40.00. Not at my local library. not at archives.org

3. Not at Amazon.com . Not at archive.org

4. 1906 series available at Amazon.com for $15.00

5. at amazon.com used for $18.00. not at archive.org or at my local library.

6. not at amazon.com. Not at archive.org and not at my local library.

7. not at amazon.com not at archive.org. Not at my local library

8. Not at amazon.com Not at archive.org. Not at my local library.

This list of books submitted by Mr. Loje are either not readily available or (heaveen forbid!!) are not that recent. All in all it is a very "obscure" list of books. Whereas the list of books I submitted are readily available and FREE!! Kindly submit your sources as to where to buy these books and I will "enjoy" them.EdwardLovette (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you only find it convenient to visit a local library without many books, but that isn't the same as their being non-existent or impossible to find. And for the record, the three articles were from JSTOR. --Loje (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Hi. I added some replies to your replies, and made several of the edits in I think the way you had suggested. I would appreciate it if you would look them over and add any additional replies in a couple of the threads that may be needed. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Werchovsky,

I am currently reading Prince Von Bulow's memoirs(1932), a fascinating analysis of the world at that time. I was curious if know where I could find a map of the ethnic makeup of the German Empire. Something like the picture you have on the Austro-Hungarian Empire's ethnic makeup on the Origins of WWI article page.75.84.230.67 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.230.67 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never run across an ethnic map of Germany circa 1914. Werchovsky (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Werchovsky, On page 236. of Prince Von Bulow's memoirs, he says "We Germans had given our assent, without reserve or hesitation, to the whole demarche against Serbia, leaving allies free to choose their method. This made them perfectly sure of our support, and they felt in no way bound to consider us. With our blank cheque signed they proceeded to sit down to the gaming table and lose our money with their own. Had we not, after all, from the OUTSET, given them leave to go to any lengths with Serbia---even to war, with ALL ITS CONSEQUENCES?

It truly makes me sad for Germany when I read this stuff. This is a man who knew intimately the Kaiser and the German foreign office. Such a shame. These stupid errors inaugerated 31 years of pure hell for Germany.75.84.230.67 (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Edwardlovette75.84.230.67 (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Werchovsky,

I was recently reading the Origins of World War One Wikepedia article, and I have to thank you very much for some of the edits.75.84.225.75 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.225.75 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)