Landships II

Centurion · Legend

When did it end?

Michel Boer · Brigadier

I can agree to that. Out of the modeller's point of view, most vehicles that were used from 1918 to 1925 in these 'spin-off' wars, are the same as those used in WW1 upto 1918. My own interests stretch over a much longer period and I would draw the line even to the start of the Spanish Civil war, when they used vehicles that were also used in WW2. But if anyone will not talk to me about armour of later than 1918, 1925 or 1936, it's no problem for me. Anyway, I suppose there are other forums for those subjects.

I've started out to help Peter with the designs of the Landships decals series, and I can reveal that some of the plans we have, do in fact cover some of these spin off wars. Suggestions, requests and photo's are welcome!

Michel.

28juni14 · Hero

This is an ongoing thought chain.... There are those who suggest it didn't end until May 1945.

Personally, I like to take the other extreme; ... it's beginning. My opinion is the seed was planted with the capitulation of French Naval personnel in Paris; 1871. From that point on "la vengeance" was the silent creed passionately consumed at the various E'cole Militarie.

Treadhead · Major

..........I'm REALLY liking this thread!

Please, by all means......don't stop.

Tread.

Matt Heil · Lieutenant

>>But if anyone will not talk to me about armour of later than 1918, 1925 or 1936, it's no problem for me. Anyway, I suppose there are other forums for those subjects.

See, that's just it, I have never seen a forum devoted to between-the-wars vehicle development, which I regard as equally as fascinating and whacky as WW1 equipment, as well as being largely updates of WW1 designs and concepts. To that end, I think it should be a part of this forum. However, I do think we could limit ourselves to pre-1933, as that's when we really start to intrude on early-WW2 stuff, I think. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents (.015 euro?).
Matt

-- Edited by Matt Heil at 07:30, 2005-12-16

Mario Wens · Lieutenant

Gentlemen,

As a (former) historian I tend to take the opposite view. There was not a single day in the twentieth century when there wasn't a war going on somewhere on earth, and if you dig deep enough all wars can be connected to eachother. The view for example that both World Wars are in fact one conflict with a long truce in between is tempting, but not realistic.

In essence the First World War is a conflict between two blocks of Nations, the Allies and the Centrals, and you cannot claim that started before August 1914 (though its seeds were sown in 1870 and even long before that if the balkans is concerned), nor is it realistic to say it went on after November 1918, though one can argue wether a war ends when a truce is called or when a peace is signed. General rule is the FORMER will be taken as the end of the war, as Peace can take a long time to develop. This does not always apply. The Fourth Anglo-Dutch war for example is normally quoted as lasting from 1780 to 1784, but the figthing actually ended in 1781-82, and the rest was diplomacy. If you take a rigid view that the Peace treaty is the end however, you are in for some surprises. Carthage signed a Peace with Rome in the 1980's (!), more than 2000 years after the end of hostilities...

Concerning truces the general rule seems to be that they are seen as part of a war if it was likely that hostilities would break out again any time. Thus the twelve-year truce in the War of Dutch Independence against the Superpower of that day, the Spanish, is seen as part of what used to be called the eighty years war (1568-1648). Fighting could break out any time there, and finally did in 1621. Alternatively, the Germans swallowed the unacceptable Peace Terms at Versailles in 1919, because it was not a realistic option to go to war again.

As a conclusion I would uphold 1914-1918 as the years for the Great War. Do not make the mistake to confuse related conflicts like the ones quoted in this thread with the actual war. But always keep in mind that names and dates are labels put on events afterwards, and for the soldier on the ground on the displaced civilian it does not make much difference what future historians will call their suffering!

Mario

Centurion · Legend

Mario Wens wrote:

Gentlemen,
In essence the First World War is a conflict between two blocks of Nations, the Allies and the Centrals, and you cannot claim that started before August 1914 (though its seeds were sown in 1870 and even long before that if the balkans is concerned), nor is it realistic to say it went on after November 1918, though one can argue wether a war ends when a truce is called or when a peace is signed. General rule is the FORMER will be taken as the end of the war, as Peace can take a long time to develop.

Ah but if we take that view do we say that WW I did not start for Italy until 1915 (or perhaps 1916 when they got around to declaring war an Germany as well as Austro Hungary)?When did World War I end in Russia -1917 Brest Livtosk? Did only start in 1917 as far as the USA and Brazil were concerned? And when in 1917 - when US declared war on Germany or when they had declared war on Austro Hungary as well six months later? When did the War end for Roumania, Turkey etc? Was it a world war when it was only Serbia and Autro Hungary and how many countries have to join or leave before it starts to be a world war or just becomes a local conflict? There was never a nice clean declaration of war (or peace treaty) between the Central Powers and the Allies. Indeed there was never any such 'legal' or treaty entity as the Allies or Central Powers (unlike the United Nations and the Axis in WW2 and even then there was some fuzziness). Taking a practical de facto view as opposed to a theoretical de jure view one could say it started with the outbreak of continuous fighting and ended when the last element of combat directly caused by the events of the conflict ended (notice directly). Thus as Germany deliberately helped to make the Boshevick revolution possible by delivering Lenin and co to the Finmark station we could count the Russian Civil war as a direct extension of the conflict. The messy break up of the Russian empire caused by its collapse and the activities of German Frei corps give credence to including various Eastern European conflicts etc. The Carpathian war could be regarded as unfinished business between Austria and the Serbs stemming from 1914.

Otherwise if we take Mario's approach we would have to accept some funny (peculiar) approaches to WW2 as equally sensible. I know a number of Finns who will tell you that Finland never took part in WW2 (they argue that their 'Continuation War' against the Soviet Union 1941-1944 was a seperate war altogether - it just happened to be going on at the same time - gosh what a coincidence!). It may be possible to make an academic argument to this effect (one that might appeal to a medeaval lawer) but in prctical terms its just that - academic. The same practical approach can be applied to earlier conflicts. The 'Napoleonic War' could be considered over when Bonaparte abdicated in 1814 but this would be to ignore the fact that fighting continued in Norway for some months and then we have the 'hundred days'. Practically we usually say that these wars ended in 1815 (Napoleonic war is ony a British label anyway in Denmark the name is the British War - or possible the English War [sorry Hamish])

If we want to be picky why not use the plural and refer to the First World Wars to encompass the period 1914-1925?

-- Edited by Centurion at 14:20, 2005-12-16

Mario Wens · Lieutenant

Centurion wrote:

It may be possible to make an academic argument to this effect (one that might appeal to a medeaval lawer) but in prctical terms its just that - academic.

Robert,

If you read my posting carefully you would have noticed that what I said at the end is "always keep in mind that names and dates are labels put on events afterwards". The First World War wasn't called that when it was taking place. All classification in history is made afterwards, as is all the analysing. But I must point out that if you had asked the participants that survived the conflict afterwards, 80 to 90% (if not more) would have said it started in 1914 and ended in 1918 , and this without being told so by historians. The 1914-18 dates are not arbitrary, they fit the main conflict. And what's wrong with the USA saying the second World War lasted from 1941 to 1945...for them? But there is no denying there is a relation between Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler's invasion of Poland. But it is a very Western approach to things: the Chinese will take 1935 as the start I'm sure.

As to the difference between the historical consensus on what the Main Conflict is in a war, and it's related 'minor' conflicts, I would like to give you the following food for thought: The fighting in Vietnam was directly related to WW2 and even a result of it, but no man in his right mind would claim that thus WW2 lasted untill 1975...

All I tried was to point out how the academic world of Historians look at wars, not to tell you what to think yourself. Feel free to disagree, as I do with your views

And finally: it never was called the Napoleonic War, but always the Napoleonic Wars (note the plural) (or "the Coalition Wars"). They were on and off from the beginning of the French Revolution to the end of the 100 Days Campaign in 1815, a continuous shift to war or peace as the alliances and fortunes of war dictated.

Mario

-- Edited by Mario Wens at 19:35, 2005-12-16

Centurion · Legend

Mario Wens wrote:

Centurion wrote:

But I must point out that if you had asked the participants that survived the conflict
{WELL FROM THE WESTERN NATIONS BUT WOULD YOU HAVE HAD THE SAME RESPONSE FROM EASTERN EUROPE?}

afterwards, 80 to 90% (if not more) would have said it started in 1914 and ended in 1918 , and this without being told so by historians. The 1914-18 dates are not arbitrary, they fit the main conflict. And what's wrong with the USA saying the second World War lasted from 1941 to 1945...for them? But there is no denying there is a relation between Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler's invasion of Poland. But it is a very Western approach to things: {AS IS THE 1914 1918 DATING SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE} the Chinese will take 1935 as the start I'm sure.
As to the difference between the historical consensus on what the Main Conflict is in a war, and it's related 'minor' conflicts, I would like to give you the following food for thought: The fighting in Vietnam was directly related to WW2 and even a result of it, but no man in his right mind would claim that thus WW2 lasted untill 1975...
All I tried was to point out how the academic world of Historians look at wars, not to tell you what to think yourself. Feel free to disagree, as I do with your views
And finally: it never was called the Napoleonic War, {OH YES IT WAS I'VE BRITISH WRITTEN VICTORIAN BOOKS THAT DO SO BUT THEY ALSO SOMETIMES CALL IT THE GREAT WAR AS WELL} but {NOT}always the Napoleonic Wars (note the plural) {WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME TREATMENT I'M SUGGESTING FOR WW1}(or "the Coalition Wars"). They were on and off from the beginning of the French Revolution {NO NAPOLEONIC USUALLY REFERS TO THE RESUMPTION OF FIGHTING AFTER THE ARMISTICE OF 1801, MOST OF MY TEXTS REFER TO THE FIGHTING BEFORE THEN AS THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR (S) } to the end of the 100 Days Campaign in 1815, a continuous shift to war or peace as the alliances and fortunes of war dictated. {AS HAPPENED RIGHT UP TO 1925}
Mario-- Edited by Mario Wens at 19:35, 2005-12-16

You're making my point for me.

Treadhead · Major

.......GOD!...I'm lovin' this stuff!!

Not only that, but the 'filling in' that is taking place in my historical education is priceless.....maybe I should be paying you fellas for this?....?

warmest regards,

Tread.

Mario Wens · Lieutenant

Centurion wrote:

You're making my point for me.

Oh no, I'm not! Why should I? I disagree with it, and must protest about you misrepresenting my arguments as such. You are entitled to your views, but please do not put words in my mouth I haven't spoken.

Prior to 1914 neither the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Austro-Hungarians nor the British were at war with eachother. During 1914-1918 they were, and had millions of men mobilised and fighting. After 1918 the major participants were not at war with eachother either.

The Great War was over in 1918 for all the major players concerned

True, for the Russians the FIGHTING didn't stop, but the Great War had. They were not fighting the Germans or Austrians anymore. The British/French/Belgian forces fighting in Russia were puny compared to the scale of the Great War, and it must therefore be largely seen as a Civil War. The Poles will no doubt protest about that, but will remember that the Russians needed some persuading to accept their Independence after WW1 (and for that matter the Finnish Independence too).

I agree that there are related conflicts, and I would be the last person to prevent them being discussed here, but do not expect the world at large to embrace the 1914-1925 dating, or for that matter the 1871-1925 one. Dating and naming wars is a subjective business, and one that is revised from time to time on the basis of new insights. I do however not forsee any new dating for the First World War in our lifetime, if ever.

Mario

eugene · Field Marshal

I say there is a big split between the post war Germany and 1933
so I don think we can carry WWI to 1945, there si a big diffrence between the NAZI Germany and the German empire and weimar republic I think the early twenties is the end of wwi spinoffs/conflics.

J Fullerton · Captain

I tend to see the fighting between the Turks and the Greeks as being a local continuation of WW1....unlike the Russians, who were no longer fighting their wartime enemies any longer. The 'Turkish war of Independence' (i believe I've seen it described thus) was a failure on the part of the Allies to enforce their original peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and ultimately a reversal of that treay (Sevres) and replacement with another (Lausanne). That meets my informal threshhold of continuity for the war, at least.

By the way, where was the last place that the spillover fighting took place? And was it indeed 1925, or did it go beyond that anywhere?

28juni14 · Hero

... I must respectfully agree with Mario.... Hostilities for The Great War began in 1914, and ended on November 11, 1918. The fact that additional fighting broke out with sub-factions of that greater conflict can not realistically be interpreted as a continuation of the Great War.

Just as the Balkan Wars were a prelude to the "main event", the post war conflicts were a post-script to that same "main event". For historical accuracy we can not blur them together!

That is not to say certain events such as: the continued blockage of Germany for well over 8 months, the chronic malnurishment and subsequent impairment of tens of thousand German children, the "Rhineland Bastards" insult, and the terms of the treaty itself... didn't fuel the political aspirations of later-day power-men who sought a "continuation war or retribution".

Date: Dec 17, 2005

J Fullerton wrote:

I tend to see the fighting between the Turks and the Greeks as being a local continuation of WW1....unlike the Russians, who were no longer fighting their wartime enemies any longer. The 'Turkish war of Independence' (i believe I've seen it described thus) was a failure on the part of the Allies to enforce their original peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and ultimately a reversal of that treay (Sevres) and replacement with another (Lausanne). That meets my informal threshhold of continuity for the war, at least. By the way, where was the last place that the spillover fighting took place? And was it indeed 1925, or did it go beyond that anywhere?

Fighting between Turkish Forces and the French was still going on in Syria in 1920 - the French deployed FT17s in this one by the way. German Frei Corps and some German flying corps units were active in the Baltic states in 1919 but were reigned in as part of the final treaty in Versailles. However German volunteers flew, in the Ukrainian/Russian/Polish fracas (flying Sopwith Camels! (Whilst on the opposing side there were British and American volunteers flying Albatrosses!) In fact German volunteers seem to have got a lot of places including I think the Finish independance struggle. Fighting kept flaring up in the Baltic States until 1925 (at one time Poland actually set up a puppet mini breakaway state here and actually occupied bits of Baltic states until well into the 20s. I've only just got home after being away a week but I'll sit down and do a list of who was fighting whom and when.

This discussion seems to have produced some heat in places. I think I might sum up a point of view simply as follows :

1. What we conventionaly refer to as the First World War was in fact a whole series of wars with many different groupings of allies and co beligerants not all with the same war aims or even reasons for going to war. Not every country in what all the has been called the 'Central Powers' was at war with every country in the 'Allies' and declarations of war were very staggered in time (for example Italy declared war on Austro Hungary in 1915 but stayed neutral in respect of Germany for over a year after that (which actually gave German U boat commanders a dilemma when attacking mixed convoys of French and Italian ships).

2. Yes the biggest chunk of fighting took place in 1914-1918 but because of the mixed war aims, alliances etc etc the numbers fighting built up from 1914 as more countries joined the conflict and individual countries widnened the scope of who they were at war with. I think that Brazil may have been the last country to formally join in in 1917 (just after the US). Nor was the end a nice clean set of surrenders as different countries sought peace at different times and others began to 'melt down' and conficts spun out of the ruins.

3. My suggestion (which I think may have been overlooked by some) is quiet subtle. This is that whilst we can still use the term The First World War to refer to the main conflict this is somewhat of a Westerncentric attitude and we might want to use the PLURAL The First World Wars (Again note the plural form) to encompass the whole set of interconnected conflicts taking place over a longer period.

At the risk of creating some attacks of apoplexy I could point out that the very term World War One is a misnomer as the Seven Years War and the whole set of conflicts between 1793 and 1815 could equally be called world wars (they certainly had as wide a scope with (in the second exmple) fighting taking place in both North and South America as well as Europe, North Africa, South Africa, India, The East Indies, The Caribean, and Asia. (and perhaps more counties were involved such as Switzerland [as the Helvetic Republic], Sweden and of course Spain. But as Micheal Winner says calm down its only a debating point and I'm not seriously suggesting that we start refering to World War Three.

Centurion · Legend

Sorry thats me - centurion I forgot to login in

J Fullerton wrote: I tend to see the fighting between the Turks and the Greeks as being a local continuation of WW1....unlike the Russians, who were no longer fighting their wartime enemies any longer. The 'Turkish war of Independence' (i believe I've seen it described thus) was a failure on the part of the Allies to enforce their original peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and ultimately a reversal of that treay (Sevres) and replacement with another (Lausanne). That meets my informal threshhold of continuity for the war, at least. By the way, where was the last place that the spillover fighting took place? And was it indeed 1925, or did it go beyond that anywhere? Fighting between Turkish Forces and the French was still going on in Syria in 1920 - the French deployed FT17s in this one by the way. German Frei Corps and some German flying corps units were active in the Baltic states in 1919 but were reigned in as part of the final treaty in Versailles. However German volunteers flew, in the Ukrainian/Russian/Polish fracas (flying Sopwith Camels! (Whilst on the opposing side there were British and American volunteers flying Albatrosses!) In fact German volunteers seem to have got a lot of places including I think the Finish independance struggle. Fighting kept flaring up in the Baltic States until 1925 (at one time Poland actually set up a puppet mini breakaway state here and actually occupied bits of Baltic states until well into the 20s. I've only just got home after being away a week but I'll sit down and do a list of who was fighting whom and when. This discussion seems to have produced some heat in places. I think I might sum up a point of view simply as follows : 1. What we conventionaly refer to as the First World War was in fact a whole series of wars with many different groupings of allies and co beligerants not all with the same war aims or even reasons for going to war. Not every country in what all the has been called the 'Central Powers' was at war with every country in the 'Allies' and declarations of war were very staggered in time (for example Italy declared war on Austro Hungary in 1915 but stayed neutral in respect of Germany for over a year after that (which actually gave German U boat commanders a dilemma when attacking mixed convoys of French and Italian ships). 2. Yes the biggest chunk of fighting took place in 1914-1918 but because of the mixed war aims, alliances etc etc the numbers fighting built up from 1914 as more countries joined the conflict and individual countries widnened the scope of who they were at war with. I think that Brazil may have been the last country to formally join in in 1917 (just after the US). Nor was the end a nice clean set of surrenders as different countries sought peace at different times and others began to 'melt down' and conficts spun out of the ruins. 3. My suggestion (which I think may have been overlooked by some) is quiet subtle. This is that whilst we can still use the term The First World War to refer to the main conflict this is somewhat of a Westerncentric attitude and we might want to use the PLURAL The First World Wars (Again note the plural form) to encompass the whole set of interconnected conflicts taking place over a longer period. At the risk of creating some attacks of apoplexy I could point out that the very term World War One is a misnomer as the Seven Years War and the whole set of conflicts between 1793 and 1815 could equally be called world wars (they certainly had as wide a scope with (in the second exmple) fighting taking place in both North and South America as well as Europe, North Africa, South Africa, India, The East Indies, The Caribean, and Asia. (and perhaps more counties were involved such as Switzerland [as the Helvetic Republic], Sweden and of course Spain. But as Micheal Winner says calm down its only a debating point and I'm not seriously suggesting that we start refering to World War Three.

eugene · Field Marshal

it was orignally called the great war
and only after WWII it became know as WWI
the term world war wasnt used, only after the most bloody and destructive war, did people begin to view these wars as worldwars
becasue after all Nopoleonic wars and the Seven years war, even the war for austrian succession all had international fighting and complex alliances

Mario Wens · Lieutenant

eugene wrote:

it was orignally called the great war and only after WWII it became know as WWI the term world war wasnt used, only after the most bloody and destructive war, did people begin to view these wars as worldwars

Sorry Eugene,

very few people realise this, but the term 'World War' was already used by the Nazi's in the Thirties, though I am not sure they were the ones to invent the term. They began to call it the FIRST world war after the second took place, for obviuos reasons.

Mario

Centurion · Legend

eugene wrote:

it was orignally called the great war and only after WWII it became know as WWI the term world war wasnt used, only after the most bloody and destructive war, did people begin to view these wars as worldwars becasue after all Nopoleonic wars and the Seven years war, even the war for austrian succession all had international fighting and complex alliances

Certainly British references to WW2 (and therefore by implication to WW1) appear about 1940/41. Conversly I have seen histories of the 'Great European War (my italics) refering to 1914-18 but I have in my possesion a victorian "History of the Great War" that refers to 1793-1815. I have also seen American references of the same period to "The Great War" that turn out to be a shortened title for "The Great War between the States" ie the Civil War. There are lots of Great Wars [' "and what did you do in the Great War pater?" " Oh I manned an anti elephant catapult"']

Whilst to the World overall (and the Soviet Union in particular) WW2 was "the most bloody and destructive war" for Britain WW1 might be this as British casualties were highest in this conflict. For Americans the bloodiest conflict (given relative populations) might be the Civil War - especially for some communities. On a business trip to Washington I took a trip out to a restraunt in a small Virginian town. Taking a stroll around I examined a war memorial. The remembered dead were grouped into wars. There was a single line for Vietnam with perhaps eight or more names, Korea had I think three names, WW2 about five lines and WW1 a line. A single entry commemorated the Spanish American War and then line after line for the Civil War! Probably not typical I know but it illustrates how the impact of history varies from place to place.

What a war gets called will vary with time and place (to most Soviets WW2 was the Great Patriotic War). I think the best that one can do is adopt some title that tries to encompass our current understanding of the scope and timing that we can see from our less involved perspective.

Mario Wens · Lieutenant

Centurion wrote:

What a war gets called will vary with time and place (to most Soviets WW2 was the Great Patriotic War). I think the best that one can do is adopt some title that tries to encompass our current understanding of the scope and timing that we can see from our less involved perspective.

Robert,

Are YOU now making my point for ME?

All fun aside, it would be interesting to see who can find the oldest reference to the term "World War" for WW1. I have in my collection a sigaret card book called "Der Weltkrieg" (The World War) dating from the late Thirties, and containing reference to a book by Otto Riebicke called "Was brauchte der Weltkrieg" (What did the WorldWar cost) of 1936. By the mid thirties it seems the term World War was not unusual, at least in Germany. Any other examples?

Mario

eugene · Field Marshal

what about WWI in 1945? or did that happen later?

it is still called the great war a lot, just not 'the war to end all wars"