Question for all you historians out there

[Robot Chicken]

Here's a question I've been pondering since I watched Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow. There was a reference to the First World War but the film is set in 1938.

Up until the Second World War, the First World War was known as the Great War, right?

When did the Second World War begin to be called the Second World War? Was it after the USA joined? Until then it wasn't a World War, was it?

Does anyone know?

 

[itszamora]

I don't, no. However it could be argued that as all the fighting in WW1 took place in Europe with a tiny bit in the N.Atlantic it was not really a world war anyway; whereas WW2 unquestionably was. But after WW2 they could not go on calling WW1 'the great war' as they'd just had an even greater one. And as these two conflicts were so much more destructive than anything before (and God forbid again) witnessed in human history, I guess First and Second World Wars made sense. This is especially true of ourselves as Britain actually lost more men in WW1; the lesser of the two conflicts.

 

[coach03]

"Don't mention the war... I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it............."

 

[Juan Albion]

However it could be argued that as all the fighting in WW1 took place in Europe with a tiny bit in the N.Atlantic it was not really a world war anyway;

Well, there were campaigns outside those two areas, notably Palestine and Mesopotamia (e.g. capture of Baghdad). But perhaps they are the exceptions that prove your point really.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

from http://www.firstworldwar.bham.ac.uk/qanda.htm

Darren Hakker, Toronto, asks:

My co-workers and I are having a friendly bet as to when World War One was first called World War One. Was it once World War 2 began or after it ended or sometime in the middle? And by whom? No one seems to know here. Thank you very much.

Answer by John Bourne, Director of the Centre for First World War Studies, University of Birmingham:-

Use of the expression ‘The First World War’ certainly pre-dated the outbreak of the Second World War and was probably contemporary to the First World War itself. To give but one example, Charles Repington, the celebrated military correspondent of The Times, published a book entitled The First World War 1914-1918 as early as 1920. The war was, perhaps, more commonly referred to as ‘the European War’, ‘the World War’ or ‘the Great War’ before 1939, but the use of ‘the First World War’ was not unusual.

 

[perth seagull]

Well, there were campaigns outside those two areas, notably Palestine and Mesopotamia (e.g. capture of Baghdad). But perhaps they are the exceptions that prove your point really.

There were also campaigns in Africa, China and the Pacific, and naval skirmishes in the Indian Ocean. The First World War was a world war, although the various battles outside of Europe were no where near as extensive as in the Second World War.

 

[perth seagull]

Well, there were campaigns outside those two areas, notably Palestine and Mesopotamia (e.g. capture of Baghdad). But perhaps they are the exceptions that prove your point really.

There were also campaigns in Africa, China and the Pacific, and naval skirmishes in the Indian Ocean. The First World War was a world war, although the various battles outside of Europe were no where near as extensive as in the Second World War.

 

[Brovion]

A Times Journalist, can't remember his name but it was Remington or something, referred to the war as the 'first world war' in about 1919. Also I have a book published in 1925 that refers to 'the first world war'. The actons outside Europe were undoubtedly not as nearly as many or as intense as during WW2 (for example in WW1 the American only fought in Europe) and indeed the term 'The European War' was used almost as much as 'The Great War'. After the fighting finished there was an organisation set up called the Battle Nomenclature Committee who's job it was to give names to the various actions (First Battle of Ypres etc), and I don't think they ever actually agrees on an 'official' name.

However, yes the term 'first world war' was in use before 1939.


For what it's worth I think that in a few centuries time historians will just lump the two together as the '20th Century War'.

 

[Brovion]

from http://www.firstworldwar.bham.ac.uk/qanda.htm

....

Use of the expression ‘The First World War’ certainly pre-dated the outbreak of the Second World War and was probably contemporary to the First World War itself. To give but one example, Charles Repington, the celebrated military correspondent of The Times, published a book entitled The First World War 1914-1918 as early as 1920. The war was, perhaps, more commonly referred to as ‘the European War’, ‘the World War’ or ‘the Great War’ before 1939, but the use of ‘the First World War’ was not unusual.

I really should read threads thoroughly first! Charles Repington, that was his name.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

In the next century my guess is they will both merge into one and be referred to as the World War. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 enabled Hitler to stir up the Germans in the early 30's and was a direct cause of WWII. Without that treaty WWII probably wouldn't have happened - Hitler wouldn't have been able to build the power base he did.
History will come to look at it as one war with a 21 year gap.
I expect they'll all be discussing this point in 100 years time as they wait for kick off in the opening game at Falmer

 

[South Stand Zealot]

I think history will eventually say that it was Bismarck who kicked it all off in the 19th Century with German Nationalism and state amalgamations.

This lead directly to the Franco-Prussian War (our Froggy friends seem to love being invaded by the Krauts.)

Then along came two fruit cases. Firstly Kaiser Bill, who tried it on but finished his days in exile (Belgium ?) and the mad Austrian Adolph.

Yes. All this will be viewed as one in years to come but it will take a long long time to be seen as one skirmish with our Saxon cousins.