Why isn't the Seven Years' War called WWI?

[Traitorfish]

In an embryonic form, yeah. As early as 1867, it was written into Austrian law that:

Originally Posted by Article 19, Basic State Act of 1867

All races of the empire have equal rights, and every race has an inviolable right to the preservation and use of its own nationality and language. The equality of all customary languages in school, office and public life, is recognized by the state. In those territories in which several races dwell, the public and educational institutions are to be so arranged that, without applying compulsion to learn a second country language, each of the races receives the necessary means of education in its own language.

Which as you can see is a century ahead of its time when compared to even the United Kingdom, which only put Welsh on an equal footing with English in the 1990s, and has still to make any similar gestures for Irish, Scottish Gaelic or (god forbid!) Scots. Now, granted, this was a largely theoretical equality in 1867, and the Hungarian section of the empire (dominated by Magyar interests) tended to drag behind a little, but the general arc of later Austrian-Hungarian history shows an increasing tendency towards a policy of multiculturalism. Not for nothing has Dachs described the collapse of the empire as one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of the 20th century.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

In an embryonic form, yeah. As early as 1867, it was written into Austrian law that:

Which as you can see is a century ahead of its time when compared to even the United Kingdom, which only put Welsh on an equal footing with English in the 1990s, and has still to make any similar gestures for Irish, Scottish Gaelic or (god forbid!) Scots. Now, granted, this was a largely theoretical equality in 1867, and the Hungarian section of the empire (dominated by Magyar interests) tended to drag behind a little, but the general arc of later Austrian-Hungarian history shows an increasing tendency towards a policy of multiculturalism. Not for nothing has Dachs described the collapse of the empire as one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of the 20th century.

How much popular support did nationalists in Austria-Hungary have anyway? I recall Russia and Italy were notable patrons, but then we're talking about outside support.

[Masada]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

So Austria-Hungary would better be compared to Switzerland or the European Union, rather than the British, Ottoman and Russian Empire? If so, I concede.

No, it should be compared to modern nation-states which have, by and large, moved past the need to enforce cultural, linguistic, religious and political uniformity on their people.

[Lord Baal]

Let's not forget Pan-Ottomanism as well, in this discussion of multi-culturalism in the Central Powers. It wasn't the dominant political strain in the Ottoman Empire that the emphasis on equal rights was in Austria-Hungary, but it was influential.

We also can't forget that it was the Hungarian portion of Austria-Hungary responsible for most of the racial problems facing the Empire, and that a civil war between the two states of the Dual Monarchy was a likely occurence when the ausgleich was up for renewal in 1917. The resulting Austrian victory would lead to a de-emphasis on Magyar interests, which would only be better for constitutionalism and ethnic harmony in the Empire.

[Absolution]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

Haha, yes, "evil" is such a useful historical category.

Be honest - can a normal man look at WWII in a neutral way? It doesnt matter where you live.
As long as you aren't a Nazi, you can see the difference between WWII and other global wars in history. As you said, usually evil is not a useful historical category. That what makes WWII different from normal wars in history. In WWII the term evil can really be used.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Absolution

In WWII the term evil can really be used.

On both sides. It wasn't that the Soviet Union at the time was any better than Nazi-Germany was. Besides, what about Finland?

[Absolution]

It doesn't matter what Stalin did, it does matter that even people who's army didn't really participate in the war saw the Axis as the "evil". And people will keep consider them the evil side in the future, that's for sure.
Even if it isn't completely correct, this is what people think, and this is what matters.
In the seven years war people didn't feel like a victory of a specific side would be a disaster for humanity, as far as I know.

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Absolution

Be honest - can a normal man look at WWII in a neutral way? It doesnt matter where you live.
As long as you aren't a Nazi, you can see the difference between WWII and other global wars in history. As you said, usually evil is not a useful historical category. That what makes WWII different from normal wars in history. In WWII the term evil can really be used.

I didn't take as much exception to your characterization of WW2 as a conflict of evil vs. good (or not that bad) guys, even though I still think that this is not a particularly useful approach. This is in part because I resent the term evil in almost all situations, considering how metaphysically loaded it is. "Morally objectionable" sounds weak when faced with the Holocaust, but at least it's ... more objective.

It's more that you lumped WW1 into the same category without good reason.

Originally Posted by Absolution

It doesn't matter what Stalin did, it does matter that even people who's army didn't really participate in the war saw the Axis as the "evil". And people will keep consider them the evil side in the future, that's for sure.
Even if it isn't completely correct, this is what people think, and this is what matters.
In the seven years war people didn't feel like a victory of a specific side would be a disaster for humanity, as far as I know.

Well for one, losers are always more likely to be perceived as evil in retrospect. There's even this famous quote by an Allied leader that blatantly says that this is actually intended.

Plus, and that's what many people forget when talking about WW2, the Holocaust was not common knowledge during the war. Else it's very hard to explain the documented reactions of Allied soldiers when actually liberating the concentration camps. So that aspect, again, is (of course a legitimate) factor only in retrospect.

And if you're really arguing that "evilness" is put up to popular vote, you should really mention the fact that the Axis powers simply had the lower number of people on their side. Both sides were full of propaganda during the wars, so that the common people considered their enemies evil in times where they likely had no actual previous contact with them is quite natural.

For the (initially) neutral powers in both wars, my knowledge is really limited, but there certainly was some sympathy for the Axis / the Central powers in the US, albeit only within a minority. And considering how happily several South American countries took in Nazi fugitives after WW2, it doesn't seem to have been the only place.

[Bowsling]

I believe there was a large German sub during the First World War that reached the US, managing to get around the British blockade. The crew were almost celebrities in the US while they were there, I think they even met Woodrow Wilson.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

On both sides. It wasn't that the Soviet Union at the time was any better than Nazi-Germany was. Besides, what about Finland?

Or, for the matter, the allies. Dresden didn't burn to the ground of its own accord.

[caketastydelish]

Why isn't ww1 called the five years war?

Spoiler:

Because countries from all over the world were involved.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Bowsling

I believe there was a large German sub during the First World War that reached the US, managing to get around the British blockade. The crew were almost celebrities in the US while they were there, I think they even met Woodrow Wilson.

Yes, the jumbo submarine Deutschland. It was an interesting experiment, but ultimately the amount of cargo Deutschland carried and the limitations on the production of such submarines made them impractical as a solution to blockade.

Originally Posted by Oldschooler88

Why isn't ww1 called the five years war?

Spoiler:

Because countries from all over the world were involved.

This clever redefinition of the terms of the discussion has truly opened my eyes. I am floored by this simple homespun truth that we were all missing. What a pithy masterpiece of a post.

[Owen Glyndwr]

Originally Posted by Dachs

This clever redefinition of the terms of the discussion has truly opened my eyes. I am floored by this simple homespun truth that we were all missing. What a pithy masterpiece of a post.

Yes, first he finally establishes a solid answer to the age-old question "how young is too young?" And now this. Clearly we stand in the midst of greatness. The next Gibbons stands before us.

[say1988]

Hell, you could make the argument that the Seven Years' War should be the Nine Years' War as the North American theatre started in 1754.

And shouldn't the "War of 1812" be the "War of 1812, 1813, 1814, and 1815"?

There is no convention for naming wars. They are simply known as what people started calling them for any given reason.

[Lord Baal]

Originally Posted by Oldschooler88

Why isn't ww1 called the five years war?

Spoiler:

Because countries from all over the world were involved.

It also only lasted four years, so there's that.

[Traitorfish]

"The Four-and-a-bit Years War"?

[Masada]

"The-Four-and-three-Quarters-War"

[taillesskangaru]

Curiously, the Second World War by conventional definition lasted almost exactly six years.

[Absolution]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Or, for the matter, the allies. Dresden didn't burn to the ground of its own accord.

Come on, you know what I mean. You can't say the allies were too militant against Germany.
The only thing you can doubt about is the atomic bombs.
Well, it was clear that the USA is not going to nuke the whole world if they won the war. And they can also claim they didn't know terrible it will turn out to be.
On the other hand, you don't even want to imagine how the world would have looked like if Axis had won. This is my point.
In WWI it wasn't the same thing, but still it was a shocking war, in a way humanity didn't deal with before. That's the major factor which distinguish WWI and WWII from other global wars.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by taillesskangaru

Curiously, the Second World War by conventional definition lasted almost exactly six years.

Curiously, WWII was strictly speaking only ended with the treaty of San Francisco in 1951 (almost exactly 12 years after Hitler invaded Poland).

Originally Posted by Absolution

Come on, you know what I mean. You can't say the allies were too militant against Germany.
The only thing you can doubt about is the atomic bombs.

Some tactics are questionable at best. In with that I mean both in the moral sense as well as speaking in terms of military expedience and not only was Dresden questionable, but also unnessecary.

Also, terror bombing isn't less questionable than atomic bombs: A massive "strategic" bombardment involving lots of aircraft like the Dresden blitz did as much damage and death as the atomic bomb that fell on Hiroshima.