File talk:Late 19th century web alliance.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Origin?

[edit]

Where does that picture come from?--victor falk 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture, uncredited as far as I could see, appears in "History of the First World War", Purnell and Sons Ltd (a member of the British Printing Company) published in co-operation with the Imperial War Museum, London, copyright 1969 and published as a series of weekly issues.

This picture is one of at least 3 stylistically similar pictures in that publication.

This picture appears on page 9 (volume 1, #1), in "European Alliances", S.L. Mayer. [I noticed that the picture appears in Wikipedia in both the WWI and Bismarck entries. The caption in the Bismarck entry seems more accurate than the caption in the WW1 entry and more accurate than the title "World war one web alliance".]

A second picture appears on page 17 of "History of the First World War" (same article), and more closely matches the title "World war one web alliance". This second picture shows the situation in 1914 and replaces Bismark with Wilhelm II.

A third picture, appearing on page 403 (volume 1, # 16), shows Turkey's path into the war. Jcg61 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info

  • Barrie Pitt, Peter Young, Imperial War Museum (ed.): History of the First World War. In 128 parts. 8 vols. London : Published for B.P.C. Publishing by Purnell, 1969-1971.
[as mentioned above: Volume 1, Part 1, Page 9]

--Goesseln (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context

[edit]

This picture makes sense on the Bismarck page (Caption: "A main objective of Bismarck's was to prevent other major powers allying with France.") It makes no sense on the WWI page (Caption: "Political cartoon depicting the tangled web of European alliances"). At least not if meant to reflect the alliance system as of 1914, or even 1892. Caradhras (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True

True 121.212.134.131 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]