World War One 1914-1991

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Dear All,

I've been hearing stuff about how World War One and Two were just the one war, and now I've put together my own argument.


Why didn't WWI end

The Armistice was exactly that. It was an agreement which halted the war and was almost like a "ceasefire". The difference here is that a 'victory' was proclaimed by one side. The Treaty of Versailles was not a winner's proclamation, but rather another form of warfare. Severley disabled, the Germans had no desire to continue.


The Interwar Period: Allies

The Allies were, as history has showed us, keen to keep the ceasefire going, and thus set up institutions such as the League of Nations. It can be seen that, yes, this organisation failed miserably, it's failure showed that martial pressure was the most effective way at stopping war....however the governments at the time sporadically rearmed.


The Interwar Period: Germany

Germany, severly weakened by the economic warfare, found its lionisation in Adolf Hitler. Spurred on, Germany rearmed and prepared for the next stage of battle.


The Second Phase of Battle

The second phase was fought in a similar way to the first, with expansion as the main goal of the agressor.  However, once the original enemy was defeated (Germany) , Germany changed sides to fight the most potent agressor- The USSR.

The Third Phase

This sees the war continue, but in mainly economic form. That is, Russia strangled economically by NATO and the Allies forced into an arms race. Thus we have a war of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and this continues well into the 1990s.

The Final Fall


Eventually, thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev (hope I've spelt that right), The Soviet Union is disbanded/collapses. Thus we see countries like Poland become countries again. Therefore we can see that since Eastern Europe has been unoccupied by both Germany and Russia- key players in both wars- the war is over BECAUSE the agressors have been completley disbanded and no longer have a hold over the minor European countries and do not hold martial significance for the Allies and there is a relative peace.


"The lights have gone out all over Europe and I doubt we will see them re-lit within our lifetime".



A.

[Hagar]

Interesting theory. The Treaty of Versailles was a very unsatisfactory end to WWI & caused great hardship & bitterness in Germany. I never did figure out the real cause of WWI as it's very complex but I believe that Adolf Hitler saw Soviet Russia & Communism as the main threat to Germany & the whole of western Europe. He possibly saw accepting the French surrender in the same railway carriage & same location as a symbolic end to that episode. Hitler never really wanted to get involved in a long drawn out war with Britain & had always hoped to persuade the British government to join him & help defeat Stalin, if not by direct action then by not interfering.

As for Russia itself, I heard on the radio only this morning that it's still run very much on communist lines which is not surprising as many of the old communist leaders have been voted into power. You can't change the way people think overnight & these things usually take a long time.

PS. Other regular contributors to this forum are far more qualified than me to comment on your theory.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Indeed, Putin, their President was ex-KGB.


A.

[Felix/FFDS]

A very interesting point of view, and as presented, quite logical.

[Apex]

I used to know a lot about the two WW's, but that was a long, long time ago.

[SilverFox441]

Very logically presented, but I would disagree with the characterisation of there being only one war.

The First World War (in parts 1 & 2) broke the traditional power structures and colonial powers. Into this power vacuum are drawn new primaries, with a new way of fighting..the use of clients.

I would characterise this new period as the Second World War. The client wars allowed the new primaries to conduct battles for dominance without directly engaging each other in battle. Economic battles were also a major factor in this war, with both sides attempting to acheive dominance through spending. This is really nothing more than a direct attempt to show superiority in their own form of leadership.

During the era of the Clients Wars we see one, or the other, primary directly enter battle in support of their respective primaries...but only one primary at a time is directly involved.

The whole thing does come to a head in 1991. One primary is already scrambling to stay relevant in an environment of vastly increasing costs associated with weapons development. The other primary has started to enter the Information Age and it's effects on future conduct is yet to be fully seen, but there are indicators.

Direct challenges between the primaries have become more normal ("Mr Gorbachov, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!"), new developments threaten to remove the nuclear threat from one side (Star Wars) and it comes to a final climatic battle in the Iraqi desert.

When the US directly entered battle against the powerful Soviet client in Iraq it showed complete dominance in every respect. Disdaining the convention of attacking with a 3-1 superiority in arms, it attacks while outnumbered.

In a shocking and stunning display of dominance it dismantles that clients capabilities at will. For the first time in aerial warfare we see the establishment of Air Dominance, not just Air Superiority. Allied warplanes roam the battlefield, going where they will and when they will virtually without challenge. Allied armour kills their counterparts at ranges where they can't even hit back. The "cover of darkness" has seen to be thrown back in spectacular manner, exposing the less technological combatant to attacks at any time convenient to the US.

The results are a foregone conclusion at this point. The most powerful client of one party has been dismantled with ease. The message the US sends to other clients of the USSR is simple; "You no longer exists with USSR assistance, you exist at our forbearance". Even in the USSR the message is clear, we go where we will and do what we want. Russian Generals are forced to examine the wreckage of an air defence environment more dense than around Moscow...and it accomplished almost nothing. The image of a US General laughing as he watches video of the Iraqi air defence headquarters being destroyed by a precision munition is powerful...it could just as easily be a building in Moscow.

The client states are faced with a horrible realisation:

Their patron may not be able to defend itself, let alone them. Clients of the US see the possibility that they can dispose of regional rivals who are clients of the USSR, virtually without interference.

The final factor facing the leadership of the USSR is the most telling. Accustomed to trading space for time, the USSR is now faced with an enemy that is interested in only a tiny fraction of land...that occupied by their leadership. Having demonstrated the capablity of destroying specific targets economically, the US sends a more subtle message to the Soviet leadership... no matter how the final battle goes, you will not see the end. A direct confrontation is suicide for the Soviet leadership, and they blink.

That blink is the signal for Soviet clients to flee, some directly to the US camp. In a final spasm the Soviet Union dissolves.

The Second World War has ended.

[H]

The major flaw is in name only -- the Germany in WW1 was not the same Germany of WW2 (nor post-WW2 Germany the same as either, even now). The same territory may be involved but a country's name is not synonymous with it as a state. Some WW2 veterans have declared just the opposite (in respect to the war's end) since the wall was torn down and Germany was again united: as "unlikely as anything seems to be, anything may be" as time progresses.
The statement "history repeats itself" is lax for interpretation; history is a record of the continuation of recurrent events. Therefore, in respect to the given analogy, even saying that WW1 began in 1914 is as untrue as saying WW2 ended in 1945 (the Korean war can most definitely be connected) or the cold war in 1991. They are all interconnected so the terms only help define certain timeframes... and the relationship of future ones remain to be seen.

[Hagar]

They are all interconnected so the terms only help define certain timeframes... and the relationship of future ones remain to be seen.

Indeed & in the most basic terms this involves the struggle for balance of power in Europe in the 20th Century. (Andrew's theory ignores the war against Japan so that is a separate issue.) Some might say that this struggle never ended but still continues today under the more peaceful concept of the European Union. Both Adolf Hitler & Winston Churchill would have liked to see a united Europe but had very different ideas on how this could be accomplished.

(the Korean war can most definitely be connected)

Like WWI the Korean War of 1950 - 53 ended in an Armistice. No peace treaty was ever signed so a truce is all that prevents further conflict. America & its allies are technically still at war with North Korea.

[Souichiro]

Very interesting theory's!

but...of the following I am not so sure..

"The lights have gone out all over Europe and I doubt we will see them re-lit within our lifetime".

while there might not be any wars of country vs country...I do not rule out civil wars. Most wars are started because of economic reasons and unrest. The economic climate hasn't been brilliant here in Europe and though they show small signs of improvance  ...caution is to be taken. What can happen when people in unrest unite is the recent issues in France. Basically people who are were not happy with the government revolted. This spread though be it in a small scale throughout europe. Things like these could be signs of bigger unrest to come...


And then the Country vs Country part...

Though it might not be a western european country vs a western european country ...I wouldn't rule out East vs West Europe.

Many former Eastern Bloc countries (EC'S) have Joined the European Union (EU). the reason for the EU to let these countries join wasn't economical but political. They wanted to let the countries florish as individual countries end cut them off from possible fallbacks into one large union like in the Soviet Union era. The EC wanted to join the EU out of Economic reasons. promises were made that they'd recieve significant funds. Now at the last EU summit, proposals were made to cut back those funds severly. It did not happen. But what if? If the financial support was cut back.. the EC wouldn't have any more reasons to stay in the EU. they might step out and form a union on their own. In that case you would get a Seperation of Europe once more, a EAST vs WEST . The EC could be influenced easily by other powers possibly like China or Russia. something like that might increase tensions..




Now I appologise for the bad writing...It is 0:55 in the morning which isn't that late but I am very tired... Off to bed now!

(If there are parts which aren't understandable...I'll re-explain tomorrow!)

[Hagar]

You have a good point there Souichi & I think this is the greatest fear. It also helps explain to me the almost incredible decision this week by my own government that I'm afraid will not be understood by the vast majority of the British public. Many people, including me, have always thought Britain is regarded by many other countries as the milch cow of Europe which is the main reason they're desperate that we don't pull out of the whole thing, whatever the cost, & let them get on with it. I was never against the original idea of a Common Market but a Federal Europe is an entirely different thing.

(If there are parts which aren't understandable...I'll re-explain tomorrow!)

I thought you explained it rather well.

[Felix/FFDS]

Like WWI the Korean War of 1950 - 53 ended in an Armistice. No peace treaty was ever signed so a truce is all that prevents further conflict. America & its allies are technically still at war with North Korea.

What War?  THere was never a declared war.  It was a Police Action, fully sanctioned by the United Nations.  Therefore, there is no "Peace Treaty" necessary...


(BTW - and if you believe that, I've also got a great deal for you on 1000ft er, 304.8m of shore line for you ...)

[Hagar]

(BTW - and if you believe that, I've also got a great deal for you on 1000ft er, 304.8m of shore line for you ...)

I usually refer to it as the Korean Conflict 1950-53.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Interesting. Rob, your point was very true and H your comment on "Germany was the same in name only" is also a very valid point. Yes, Doug, I did leave out the Pacific war for a reason- because it did not directly have a bearing on the central European conflict.

And Felix? A police action? Hahahaha!- its a harsh view, I mean those involved wouldnt call a police action a full scale war- a police action is a siege, a storming or a car chase...or if you live in LA the beating of a minority.



A.

[Hagar]

And Felix? A police action? Hahahaha!- its a harsh view, I mean those involved wouldnt call a police action a full scale war- a police action is a siege, a storming or a car chase...or if you live in LA the beating of a minority.

As usual Felix is quite correct & that was what it officially was (is?). http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

Getting back to Europe I think you would have to study the history of the EU to understand what I'm talking about. The conflict never ended but is still going on a little more peacefully. There is a very real danger that this could change as Souichi pointed out.

[Felix/FFDS]

And Felix? A police action? Hahahaha!- its a harsh view, I mean those involved wouldnt call a police action a full scale war- a police action is a siege, a storming or a car chase...or if you live in LA the beating of a minority.



A.

As Hagar points out, no WAR was ever declared.  The United Nations (okay, at the prodding of the US, with the USSR strangely abstaining from using its veto power) authorized and a called for member nations to provide assistance to expel the invaders.

For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that during the Falklands War, there was also no declaration of war between Argentina and the UK .... not that it made any difference as to the intensity of the fighting.