Search results for query: *

  1. A

    What if Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't grab any new territory in the northern Pacific from 1897-1914?

    This is at least as much a problem for your terminology. Italy left the Triple Alliance, but the misleading term "allies" is associated with a different war in which the Italians ended up on the other side. It used to be common usage to refer to Blacks, Jews, Irishmen, and Chinamen using terms...
  2. A

    What if Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't grab any new territory in the northern Pacific from 1897-1914?

    The problem is that the Triple Alliance are also the allies and unlike the Triple Entente their organization is actually called an alliance. It's like commenting on a sporting match between the Iroquois Nation and the Republic of India and calling the Iroquois team "indians."
  3. A

    What if Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't grab any new territory in the northern Pacific from 1897-1914?

    I believe it was used in period at least in media, but it doesn't really matter. We are amateur historians who need a way to distinguish the Triple Entente from the Triple Alliance. Calling the former "the allies" sabotages this distinction.
  4. A

    What if Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't grab any new territory in the northern Pacific from 1897-1914?

    You're confusing the Triple Entente with the Entente Cordiale. The collection of the Entente Cordiale, the Franco-Russian Alliance, and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 was referred to as the Triple Entente.
  5. A

    What if Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't grab any new territory in the northern Pacific from 1897-1914?

    You're confusing your wars. The two treaty networks going into WWI are the Triple Alliance (Germany/Austria/Italy) and the Triple Entente (France/Russia/UK). Most people avoid calling the Allies the Allies in WWI because of confusion with WWII, but that doesn't mean the term Allies is...
Back
Top