"75 Year War?" Topic

I think the events and dominos set in motion in August of 1914 didn't fully play out until the fall of the USSR some 75 years later. Many of the wars fought, Korea, Viet Nam became surrogate wars backed by major powers. So will historians centuries from now look at it a ONE WAR not WWI, WWII et al?

Lee494, they haven't "fully played out" yet in East Asia, but history never completely cycles around. I think it makes sense to regard the World Wars of 1914-1945 as a single unit, despite the long truce, just as we count the Peloponnesian War as a single unit, not breaking it down into the Archidamian War and the Decelean War, and refer to the Napoleonic Wars or at most, the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, without designating them by coalition as was done at the time.

But that makes all three--and of course other examples could be chosen--as generation-long wars, and no longer. The young officers of 1914 were commanding armies, some of them, in 1945. But the bulk of the young men demobilized in 1945 in Europe or 1949 in China would never go to war again. It makes as good a terminal point as one is likely to find.

Stretching it out to make it a 75 year war to stand beside the 89 Years War or the Hundred Years War suggests a unit of sides and purpose between 1914 and 1989. I can't see it.

As far as 'unity of sides' goes (I believe RP meant
unity of sides), it did not stand of course.

For reasons entirely their own, the Japanese, allied
with the Triple Entente in WWI, were Axis partners in
WWII, ditto the Italians, albeit for different
reasons.

Unity of purpose – well, the major action in Europe
ended in '45 – but there were spats about (Greece, other
Balkan states/state-wannabe's, the ending of royal
lines in some areas, etc) so if we can stretch a point
that leading families (royalty if you will) or viewpoints
(philosophies of economics and hence ways to control and
govern same) were emergent and determined to hold sway
or were in decline, I can see it, although perhaps
not entirely into '89.

Do note the dissolution of the USSR right after that
year, though. Certainly not the end of Communism -
at least the communism of the early 20th and mid-20th
century.

The hybrid communism (China) smacks more of Imperial
China than anything else and is of course an outgrowth
of the WWI-WWII 'truce' period.

Not sure if CC is an example of thesis-antithesis-
synthesis, but…

I did indeed mean "unity of sides." My apologies. I was tired. But I'll stand by it. Squinting a little, you can see 1914-45 as a coalition of France, Britain, Russia and the United States against Germany, Austria and Hungary. But the post-1945 power struggle in Europe involves very different participants and objectives. In Asia, WWI is a footnote, and even WWII means something very different. Usually when we extend the term "war" in the singular to cover a human lifetime or more through separate treaties and truces, the sides and objectives remain relatively constant. Not true in this instance. What happens after 1945 in Europe and 1949 in Asia comes out of what happened before, certainly. But it always does.

I agree with both world wars, which historian Stephen Ambrose called 'The great European Civil War'.

You can make an argument to go back further. The Fascist Italians were motivated to invade Ethiopia in 1935 by revenge for their loss at the battle of Battle of Adwa in 1896.

I don't think you can count it as one long war. To much changed and there were clear winners and losers after each conflict. Germany lost WWI and was revived under a totally different political philosophy leading to WWII, was divided afterwards and reunited after the Cold War.

By saying that various wars were linked and therefore a single war I could make an argument that WWII was the last gasp of Frederick the Great because Germany, in some form, has been at war since the 18th century. I could, tongue in cheek, call everything from Ceaser's conquest of Gaul to the yellow vest protest a single war.

However, I can make a strong argument that the Cold War is still going strong because the forces unleashed by the Soviets in the form of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are still causing conflict.

Well if you think about it, the 20th Century was pretty much in a state of war or wars somewhere. And those included two World Wars. Thru out that 100 years. And as we see some of those conflicts still continue into the 21st. Along with some newer ones.

forces unleashed by the Soviets in the form of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are still causing conflict.

Have to agree. I've often said, had the USSR not fallen, we may not have to deal with radical terrorists, etc. ? In the numbers we are today.

Again hindsight is 20/20 generally …

But the bulk of the young men demobilized in 1945 in Europe or 1949 in China would never go to war again. It makes as good a terminal point as one is likely to find.

Quite a few in Europe, China, the U.S., Australia, et al, wound up fighting in Korea (aka WW 2 1/2), 1950-3.

The twentieth century is often described as The Short Twentieth Century. 1914 to 1989.

As we all know, history ended in 1989. LOL.

Conversely, the Nineteenth Century was long. 1792 to 1914. The age of Nationalism and imperialism.