File talk:WWI-re.png

Guys, where can I find the source vector files of this map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibananti (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's map is wrong!

The map includes Mongolia as part of China, but not Tuva. Although Russia seems to have annexed Tuva in 1914, I don't think this move was recognized by anyone, so the area (Tuva) should at least be "contested". Yaan (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Which was more recognized, russian tuva or chinese tuva?--Jakezing (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that Bolivia and Uruguay are neutral but actully joined the Allies.Should Uruguay and the Other Latin American countries that took place in the war in green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SovietRussia321 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok wtf, how the hell is the Central Powers be able to hold of more than 50 contries? I do say thats WRONG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.147.143 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Mongolia shown here as part of the Republic of China? I thought it became independent in 1911 and also what is the terrirtory situated in Panama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.48 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"An unequal Kyakhta treaty of 1915 between the Czarist Russia, Mongolia and the Republic of China reduced the independence achieved by the Mongolian people to an autonomy within China." And the little thing in Panama is the USA-owned Panama Canal. 76.175.180.98 (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The republic of China didn't exist back then it was known as the Qing Empire. The republic of china only existed during World War 2 not World War 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.114.33 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading to show countries that swichted sides, like Italy, in the same group as countries which remained on the same side throughout the war. It would make sense to have four categories - Alliance, Entente, Both, and Neutral.

Thought should also be given to giving a different shading to countries which were colonies of the great powers, as the colonies were not countries in their own right at that point in history.

24.138.9.131 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Japan attacked German colonies in Germany yet had no connection with neither the central powers or allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.114.33 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I meant Japan attacked German colonies in China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.114.33 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Persia was jointly occupied by Britian and Russia from the start of World War I.--J intela (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Albania should not be coloured green; it didn't have government enough to align itself either way, and should thus be coloured grey. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Darfur should be coloured in as Central Powers as it was a cobelligerent and had a defined territory. It formally declared war against Great Britain.XavierGreen (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, this map is awful!! The territorial limits between Peru and Ecuador in South America are awful! I know this has nothing to do with WWI, since none of these countries actually took part in it, but a map this flawed in a public encyclopedia like Wikipedia may be seen as an outrage from citizens from both of these countries. Please, someone do try to correct this as soon as possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.10.207 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The border's of peru and ecuador have changed signifigantly over time. They are accurate for the era the map depicts.

I think that imperial colonies should be marked separately from sovereign nations with a different colour tone. This map leaves the impression that the whole world ganged up on the Central Powers, which really is not the case.

By my definition a colony would be a political entity whose participation in the war was decided by another government. Canada, for example, would count as a colony because it automatically went to war with Great Britain, even thought it was ostensibly sovereign. The sub-national entities of the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China would not considered a 'colony' if they were administered as an integral territory of the ruling nation.theBOBbobato (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now there are several states and other entities possessing territory that are not shown on the map but were aligned with the central powers. The basic problem is that these entities and states that are not currently shown were either claimed by other states or controlled by other states at the start of the war.

For example the Zaian Confederacy and the Senussi controlled large portions of Morocco and Libya respectively but each never claimed to be an independent state and the territories they controlled were claimed by Italy at the start of the war. Then there are the cases of states like the Republic of South Africa and Azerbaijan which at the start of the war were part of other states and whos territories were in a state of flux. While Azerbaijan survived WWI, the South African Republic was defeated and what little territory it controlled was overrun by the Dominion of South Africa.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to correct the above mentioned errors.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort you put in, you ended up making the map very complicated, and in some places misleading or just wrong. The categories "Neutral but X-sympathising or partly de facto held by anti-Y rebels" were far too vague to be meaningful here (and were also inconsistently applied), and just because someone suggested a change here doesn't mean it should be made. I'll go through my objections below, and try to break them down point-by-point:

• Albania was not really a functional state at this time. It was overrun and occupied by Entente-aligned powers, but that does not make it "sympathetic" to them. Consistently applied, this logic would have us colour Belgium orange, which would be absurd. Throughout the war, Albania as such was effectively neutral.
• Persia was indeed divided between Russian and British spheres of influence (and militarily occupied by both—see my remarks on Albania), but it was not formally colonised and nominally retained its central authority. And on the other hand, a fair number of local units from Persia fought alongside the Central Powers, including the so-called Swedish Gendarmerie, which was officially loyal to the Shah. The official position of the officially-ruling Qajar Dynasty, however, was neutrality.
• Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Uruguay only severed diplomatic relations with Germany. This is really not a useful thing to mark on the map. While the marking of countries that declared war without actually fighting (i.e. most of Latin America) is problematic on its own, adding these doesn't help.
• Co-belligerence (Darfur & the Senussi) is misleadingly equated with issuing token diplomatic actions (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Uruguay) and being forcibly occupied (Albania).
• Certain co-belligerents aren't shown (such as the Dervish state for the Central Powers or the Kingdom of Hejaz for the Entente) while others are, with no clear reason for including or excluding any particular one.
• Under the 1915 Treaty of Darin, the Emirate of Nejd and Hasa technically became a British protectorate akin to the Trucial States or the Sheikhdom of Kuwait, which are shown as solid green. The House of Saud participated in the conflict really only to continue its pre-existing power struggle against against the Rashidi of Jabal Shammar during the so-called Unification of Saudi Arabia. Even as such, its activity at the time seems to have been pretty limited.
• Though the Third Home Rule Act was passed in 1914, it was also immediately suspended (and didn't include what is now Northern Ireland anyway), and Ireland thus remained administratively part and parcel of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the duration of the war, rising anti-British sentiment notwithstanding. There's really no reason to have it a different colour than the rest of the Isles.
• The Sultanate of Darfur did not have the same borders as the modern Darfur Regional Authority of Sudan.
• Italy was formally a member of the Triple Alliance until the war, but it was not one of the Central Powers.

As such, I've reverted the changes made, though the map is still problematic. The most easily remediable issue remaining is the fact that German-controlled Tsingtau/Kiautschou is coloured green when it should be orange. I think there should be some larger discussion about if and how to include more marginal "co-belligerents" on this map, the lack of differentiation between colonies and colonisers, and whether we should keep countries that declared war but never participated in active conflict. It should probably not take place here, as this is far too obscure a page to generate much real discussion as is. Here or here would likely be better; alternatively, this discussion could be had here but advertised on more-active pages. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont see any reason why these should not be included on the page, given that one Jabal-Shammar is shown on the map currently as a neutral when this was clearly not the case. Of all the co-belligerents on either side only three were exant as states before the war, Jabal Shammar, the Dervish, and Darfur. All the other cobelligerent states, Armenia, Hejaz, Asir, Azerbajian, ect, were formed after the war began. Thus i see two options, include only cobelligent states that were extant before the war or include them all. If we decide to include them all, they would have to be hashed to differentiate that they were not in existance when the war began. I do not think that non-state co-belligents (ie: Senussi / African tribal insurgencies) / states that were declared but occupied no territory (ie: South African Republic, Provisional Government of Ireland) should be included, or if they are be designated by a dot on the page reflecting their allegiance similar to how dots are used to denote occupation on the ww2 map.XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)