2nd war or 2nd world war?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by timcam, Sep 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Some time ago when Mike Jackson was CGS he was referring to some Remembrance occasion or other on Tv and radio, but repeatedly referred to the WW2, as the "2nd War" and not the "2nd World War".

    It was not a mistake and he said it several times.

    I have never understood what was behind this. Clearly some sort of PC, but I still can't fathom what kind - or what for.

    Can anyone enlighten me?
  2. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Why would it be "Clearly some sort of PC"?
  3. I suspect because the Remembrance activities involved the Russians which I think we were having a barny over the Litvinenko case. Alternatively, CGS felt that it was technically a World war becaue countries such as China were not involved.
    He said it repeatedly with such delibertaion that he wa sobvioulsy mnaking a point - to some one , some country.

    Lastly history these days is full of post modernist interpretations that questions established historical facts ("obviously Jews were killed but can we say that Hitler really, really, wanted to exterminate the entire Jewish race, isn't that just one narrative promoted by Christo-Judaic supporters") - that kind of crap.
  4. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    I thought it was a very old fashioned term. In some old films made during or in the decade following WWII, you'll hear references to "the first war".
  5. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    Come again? You might want to look into that a little further.
  6. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Point 2: China wasn't involved yeesh I think you're the one reading invented histories

    Point 3: As some one who studied Post-modernist Historiography that's a new one on me - I think the term you are looking for is Denialist

    Here have a Windmill - Sancho will be along shortly to help you on your horse

  7. I think you should Re-take GCSE History
  8. Yep my mistake wasn't a World war I shld have said
  9. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Still not doing your cause any good here mate. RP provided the answer.
  10. What is it with you Rampant? Do you know the answer or not to the question?

    The quote about the Jews was from a Prof of Hist at Cambs.
    Go read Richard Evans' "What is History" and stop pretending you are an intellectual.
  11. Seems to me a very odd definition. Can someone clarify the reasoning behind this?

    If you leave the term World out of 1st War or 2nd War it's very non-specific, indeed not even sure it's factually true(?) so maybe we should be calling those wars by their dates or give them another name.
  12. Just forget I asked!

    Pretentious pseuds the lot of you.
  13. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer


    I say again:

    It was a very old fashioned term. In some old films made during or in the decade following WWII, you'll hear references to "the first war" or "the last war".

    Reference China; The Republic of China was very much involved in WW2. A fact that even the more cursory internet browse would garner.
  14. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Apologies mate, I just keep reading posts that seem to read far too much into things or getting the wrong end of the stick - tilting at windmills as it were. So I have begun to resort to Don Quixote to amuse myself with them.

    RP provided the answer earlier, it's simply a question of context, although Remembrance is to commemorate all that have died in all wars and conflicts, it is with both the 1st & 2nd World wars that they are most connected with in the mind's eye of the public, all the other little squabbles tend to be talked about more specifically as they do not resonate as much.

    I find that quote interesting by the way with reagrds to narrative as it seems to me to miss the point, insofar as Post Modern History is a series of analytical approaches and methodologies to the subject, moreover that when one describes narratives as being equally "valid" it as documents that exist ie words on the page document* - they do not posesses validity when one considers the actual content of the document and the evidence relied upon and they way the argument is developed.

    *Addendum: one other point when it comes to the idea of equal validity of narratives is that they are attempts to create and define knowledge of a particular subject. It is only when we examine the document, its contents arguments, sources and evidence that position of equal validity is undone.
  15. Our calling of the wars the first world war and the second world war comes from generations of historical schooling with those as the accepted terms of the day.

    Bearing in mind everyone up until the outbreak of WWII called WWI the Great War it is utterly understandable that someone well versed in history, particularly military history would be prone to using the terms of the day and its chronologically recent histiography.

    Similarly historians and politicians referred to the British Empire as Second Empire during the mid19th century? Are they wrong?

    Would I be wrong in calling WWI the Great War or is that ok because its known like that in the National Curriculum?

    All he is doing is differing from the most commonly accepted term, his word and usage are WELL WITHIN the accepted academic and critically non-academic lexicon of historical terms for WWII.

    Rampant, I would argue that POMO 'history' (as far as it can exist - the discipline has argued itself into pure philosophy over the last 10 years) is less about the document itself or the words written on it, regarding them as irrelevant as we cannot know the mindset of the person writing them. Being creations of a different age and experience we can only subjectively guess via narrative constructions of sexist modernists, antiquarian or classic writers so without being able to truely relate to the document we cannot understand its itent and it is less than useless.

    This was an actual reason given to me by a POMO professor of history during my economics MA in regards to import/export ledgers from the 1890s. I couldn't quite see how sexist social conventions had an impact on recording tonnage through docks but he then informed me that not just sicence but pure maths themselves are sexist and subjective. I remember laughing in his face and walking out the room.

    Its no wonder pure pomo died on its arse outside the social sciences, you cant make arguments or hypothesis because you cant make statements or use evidence without being torn to shreds by detractors. Its ended up with the ridiculous critical modernism premise (which is basically modernism but throwing random accusations of supra-contextual idiocy around)... as if the point of modernism was not a critical approach in the first place. Hurrah for funding cuts!

    "faint heart never did win fair maiden"