Greetings,

In another history discussion group several have been kicking around the (old) idea about "The Short Twentieth Century". This loose theory says that centuries are really historical epochs that don't always coincide with the exact mathematical centuries. For instance, one argument has it that the 20th century really began in 1918 with the end of WW I, meaning that the world was fundamentally a very different place (politically, economically, socially, diplomatically, etc.) in 1918 from 1914. Others say that WW I and WW II are really one war with a 22 year truce, so the 20th century really began in 1945. Some say it ended in September 2002 with the World Trade Center attacks, and that we've entered a new age where technology has empowered even the smallest and most remote groups (read: "crazies") to an extent that we've returned to a medieval-style instability in international political and military relations, where superpowers are dinosaurs. You get the idea - there are legions of theories on this. Everyone in this forum to one extent or another was born in the 20th century, so this is a poll to gauge its importance in history.

I am in the 'long 19th/short 20th' school of thought.
I would take 1918-2000 out of the options, but give considerable thought to the one ending in 89/90.

And the thread title is deceptive advertising!!!!:mad: One clicked on the title thinking it was a discussion of the relative merits of Jackie Coogan, Mark Lester and the like.


;):lol: :lol:

20th century?
Has it begun? :D

1918 to 1989

Ive never bought that ww1 and ww2 were the same war. They may have shared some reasons, but other major reasons were very, very, very different. The rise of fascism and the sort of mad power hunger of stalin, mussolini and hitler were not factors in WW1. While ww1 had social darwinism fueling it, and ww2 had eugnics as a background reason, they are not the same thing. Plus, wasn't Italy an Allied power in ww1? there's just too many fundamental differences between the 2 wars, IMO.

why end it in 1989 with fall of communism? well, the previous 45 years had been dominated by the communist v. capitalist world, teh soviet sphere v. the free world sphere. These ideas had been around before, and it really was only a matter of time before a communist country rose to power (1918, hey, look at that) so really, 1918 to 1989 had communist v. capitalist. WW2 had elements of this already -- Stalin was intent on crushing capitalist Nazi Germany -- and he never trusted "ally" US -- see the whole atomic bomb/yalta conference issue.

So the world started diving into a drastically different direction from the 19th Cen after WW1 capstoned that era. After 1989, we see the US worrying far less about communism and its rise, fights a war allied w/Russia against a Middle East despot (the region that is rapidly dominating this new 21st Cen), and learns how to deal with a new economic entities in China and the EU.

my 2 bits. :king:

1914-1989

May it rest in peace.

Maybe I'm a pedantic old curmudgeon, but a century is 100 years. No more, no less. The Twentieth Century is 1901 - 2000. Period.

Now when it comes to social changes and the like, sure! But call it "the Victorian Era", or "the Cold War Years", or whatever. But the Twentieth Century is still 1901-2000.

Originally posted by Padma
Maybe I'm a pedantic old curmudgeon, but a century is 100 years. No more, no less. The Twentieth Century is 1901 - 2000. Period.

Now when it comes to social changes and the like, sure! But call it "the Victorian Era", or "the Cold War Years", or whatever. But the Twentieth Century is still 1901-2000.

dude, what's the fun in that?

was ww1 a 20th century war? barely. was it fought over 20th century issues? no. it was fought over things arising out of the 19th Cen, thereby making it a 19th Cen war.

100 years = a century in the narrow, mathematical sense, but what the question is really asking, i think, is what defines the 20th Century..and its not really numbers. call it the 20th "era" or something ;)

Originally posted by Padma
Maybe I'm a pedantic old curmudgeon, but a century is 100 years. No more, no less. The Twentieth Century is 1901 - 2000. Period.

I thought 'Lefty' claimed that title. :p

I agree with cephyn about WW1 relating (mainly) to factors that carried over from the previous century, whereas WW2 and the Cold War could be considered one long conflict and the most dominant historical feature of the 20th century.

Using cephyn's logic it could be argued the historical epoch of the '20th century' extends into this century by virtue of the fact that some elements of the Cold war are still with us such as Communist China, Cuba and Nth Korea (I've probably forgotten some miserable little 'marxist' state).

Alternatively, there is a stronger argument to say that this is a diminishing historical factor and other issues such as the hostility/conflict between 'Western' civilization and Islam have become the dominant feature and will dominate for some time to come.

These sorts of discussions are good fun but ultimately historical epochs are rarely (if ever) neatly separated, but rather overlapping periods.

Vietnam and Laos are the two other communist states left.

Simon Darkshade wrote:

And the thread title is deceptive advertising!!!! One clicked on the title thinking it was a discussion of the relative merits of Jackie Coogan, Mark Lester and the like.

Sorry Simon, my thread title was inspired by a by-now very annoying auto advert here in the U.S. that features T.Rex's early 1970's tune "Twentieth Century Boy".

Well it's plain to see
that you were meant for me,
I'm your boy,
your 20th century toy...

Andycapp wrote:

These sorts of discussions are good fun but ultimately historical epochs are rarely (if ever) neatly separated, but rather overlapping periods.

Yup - exactly. Any measurement of time is going to be superficial and imposed. And in history, well we just live by artificial constructs of (perceived) continuity we call epochs, eras and ages. School kids grow up thinking there was a solid break between A.D. 475 and A.D. 476, because we make these neat color graphs that show a clean break in history books. The break really did happen, but in often subtle and imperceivable ways, so that a Kansas farmer and a New Guinea fisherman in 1918 would not have suddenly become aware of a brave, new world. But when we look back we can see that much of the world's perceptions changed radically between 1914 and 1918 - so we make those colored graphs that make it look like the whole world fell off a cliff in 1918. And basically, historically, it did.

And you're right Andy - this is the fun of history, that there is no "right" answer for something like this. The different interpretations reveal different ways of looking at the 20th century, our modern times - that's why I started this thread!

As for myself, I see the "20th century", our modern era, as starting with World War I. The rise of mass politics, socialism & fascism, anti-colonial movements, the launching of a true consumer economy, the spread of universal education, the legitimatization of statist ethnic nationalism, and not least of all the introduction of modern warfare all came from WW I. Also, some negatives: the collapse (finally!) of the old feudal empires, the death knell of the old imperial colonial empires (though a couple would stagger on into even my lifetime), the widening of the political franchises - even in the democracies, and perhaps most importantly the end of the 19th century's overly-optimistic belief that science and human inginuity could solve the world's problems - that utopia was just around the corner.

I'm not going to speculate about when this historical period may have ended (if indeed it has) because I think we're still too immersed in its effects to be able to see clearly enough.

Originally posted by cephyn


dude, what's the fun in that?

was ww1 a 20th century war? barely. was it fought over 20th century issues? no. it was fought over things arising out of the 19th Cen, thereby making it a 19th Cen war.

I agree. WW1 still had alot of the old monarch-Europe related factors in it. (death of the arch duke, mobilzing of troops long before the 20th century as in mathematical terms, alliances made after Crimea and diplo revolution)

I would say WWI ushered in the 20th as we see it, but things aren't that removed now. I say we're still in the 20th and will be for another fifteen or twenty years.

00.00 Jan 1st 1900 A.D - 00.00 Jan 1st 2000 A.D

I'm old fashioned that way.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
00.00 Jan 1st 1900 A.D - 00.00 Jan 1st 2000 A.D

I'm old fashioned that way.

Then what was the first century? 0-100?

;)

1900 till 2000.

Related with "modern century" - the fact which in many aspects is the "cornerstone" is the WWI - so we may say 1914 - .... ( still in progress ;) ).

Regards

Originally posted by cephyn
dude, what's the fun in that? Who said history was supposed to be fun?! :crazyeye: :D

was ww1 a 20th century war? barely. was it fought over 20th century issues? no. it was fought over things arising out of the 19th Cen, thereby making it a 19th Cen war.
It was fought over things arising out of the 19th century, with 19 century tactics, but it was fought in the 20th century.
Originally posted by andycapp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Padma
Maybe I'm a pedantic old curmudgeon, but a century is 100 years. No more, no less. The Twentieth Century is 1901 - 2000. Period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought 'Lefty' claimed that title. :p Lefty is a (slightly) older curmudgeon than I, but I think I am more pedantic! :p


These sorts of discussions are good fun but ultimately historical epochs are rarely (if ever) neatly separated, but rather overlapping periods. Very well put. My only pedantic objection is using a term for a clearly delineated period of time, i.e., "20th century", to refer to some other fuzzily defined period that has no real relationship with the first, other than that they both occurred at, very roughly, the same time in history.

(Besides, sometimes it's fun to pull people's chains! :D )

Just last night I was watching the BBC news when the weatherman calmly annouced that this May was the warmest in the 20th century. Of course like any normal person I started screaming at the TV 'It's the freaking 21st century now you F$%^$$ As$^$& get a life -live in the now! 2002!' :mad:

Now I feel rather foolish maybe it is still the 20th century...:(

As a patriotic englishmen I am please to inform you all that:

the 20th century is clearly defined in my mind and in the beating hearts of all true brits; by the birth, life, reign and death of the late and dearly beloved Queen Elizabeth, the Queen mother!



Yours OBN



PSST: Can I have my knighthood now?

Originally posted by Padma
:crazyeye: :D
It was fought over things arising out of the 19th century, with 19 century tactics, but it was fought in the 20th century.


Oooh, i have to disagree here. If we consider WW2 a true 20th Cen war, then WW1 falls far short.

1) air power was a sideline.
2) tanks were used sparingly, as they were weak and new.
3) the bulk of fighting was stalemate trench warfare --- drastically different from WW2 style trench warfare.

Given those major differences, I'd say that WW1 was barely a 20th Cen war -- they were all upset over the machine gun in WW1. Try explaining that to a WW2 vet. What made WW1 different from say, the Civil War in America, was 1) the repeating rifle 2) the demise of cavalry in the face of machine guns, infantry and trenches and 3) helmets on the troops. ;)

!9th Cen issues, early 20th Cen technology, but 19th Cen mentality and tactics.

If your not careful you'll end up with too many centuries!


1990 - 2002 21st
1945-1989 20th
1916-1945 19th
1807-1915 18th..

Hang on, we're a century out. By the time we get to 1 AD we won't have 1st century left...Add one in! The Zeroth Century!

<curmudgeonly had-a-pint-too-many pedant rant>
"This loose theory says that centuries are really historical epochs
that don't always coincide with the exact mathematical centuries"
- Vrylakas

Exactly, the theory is loose, discard it. A century is a hundred years, anyone who says anything different should never have been brought into contact with the idea of centuries. What next? Will someone claim that a hundred miles an hour is a loose velocity, that actually means if you're doing seventy miles an hour, your can say 'Hey! I just did a ton!"?
To be honest, I don't care how people see it, if they want to think it's 1927-1954, let them, I'm happy to see silliness prosper, if I know better.
e.g:
"Given those major differences, I'd say that WW1 was barely a 20th Cen war" - cephyn
Hmmm, what date was WWI again?

I mean, what are we saying?
"Der, in my head it seems more like an 1895 kind of battle..."
Fine! But 'in your head' is wrong.
I could go on, you know?
Pah! Shoot me someone!
</curmudgeonly had-a-pint-too-many pedant rant>

I agree and I'm going back to screaming at the weather man.

"RAAAA...

Originally posted by polymath
[Bif they want to think it's 1927-1954, let them, I'm happy to see silliness prosper, if I know better.
e.g:
"Given those major differences, I'd say that WW1 was barely a 20th Cen war" - cephyn
Hmmm, what date was WWI again?

</curmudgeonly had-a-pint-too-many pedant rant> [/B]

Look the argument here is not whether 100 years = a century or not. The argument is really about what DEFINES the 20th Century. Do I think that the events leading up to and WW1 itself are a defining part of the 20th Century? NO. and thats the whole argument.

the 20th Century, mathematically, is defined as 1901 to 2001. But I feel the years that really define the 20th Century are 1918 - 1989.

Oh, I know, I was just venting for relief from a stressful work day - I think in Europe WWI cast a very long shadow, and the answer to this question will depend on where in the world you live.
Cephyn you can shoot me if you like.

The World finally walked into the 20th century with the A-Bomb and the UN:goodjob:

Lots of excellent posts folks! I've been out on vacation and just got a chance to catch up on things here.

Polymath raises an excellent point:

I think in Europe WWI cast a very long shadow, and the answer to this question will depend on where in the world you live.

My suggestions in the poll and afterwards are all, not surprisingly, Western-oriented. The world wars were a defining experience for the West, and about as big a milestone as we've got. Would non-Westerners have similar historical markers for the 20th century? Is the concept of historical centuries/epochs exclusively a Western construct, less relevant to non-Westerners?

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Lots of excellent posts folks! I've been out on vacation and just got a chance to catch up on things here.

Polymath raises an excellent point:

I think in Europe WWI cast a very long shadow, and the answer to this question will depend on where in the world you live.

My suggestions in the poll and afterwards are all, not surprisingly, Western-oriented. The world wars were a defining experience for the West, and about as big a milestone as we've got. Would non-Westerners have similar historical markers for the 20th century? Is the concept of historical centuries/epochs exclusively a Western construct, less relevant to non-Westerners?

Well im not a China or Korea expert by any means, but as for Japan, they are an interesting case. I'd say that they skipped the 19th Century entirely, and went from a 17th Cen society to a 19th Cen society in 1868-1900. In 1904 or so, the end of the Russo-Japanese war, they entered the 20th Cen.

I voted for 1901-2001 because its a standard measurement of years and the mathematical part of me took hold.

Now I do have an historical side as well and that part of me would vote for Dec. 17, 1903 - Sept. 11, 2001. The age of flight to the age of fright.

I voted 1901-2001, for some reason. It' probably the math.

But the reason I really chose it was that Queen 'Vicky' died in 1901 (if I'm not mistaken), so that's it. The 19th century was her century, so it had to end when she died.