Talk:Interwar period

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elizabethb95. Peer reviewers: MLoson20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page organisation
I don't understand why there's links to a bunch of history articles? -b 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the opening to refer to the period as between wars, being WWI and WWII. Since WWI started in Europe and WWII started in several places, but also in Europe, the context is that between 2 wars can only refer to the European theatre and thus the years 1918 to 1939. I removed wording as it being known as the period between the wars as the title is obvious, which doen not go for the word interbellumPrudentia (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Editorializing?
"The idea behind the creation of the League was a good idea because its primary aims still remain important in today’s society however it was badly administered."

I'm not promotign debate on whether or not the ideas behind the League of Nations were good or not, but rather pointing out that such editorializations do not belong on Wikipedia. Could be rephrased to:

"Though the League of Nations was continually undermined and ultimately dissolved, many of the original goals of the League are still pursued by the United Nations, the spiritual successor of the League of Nations."

Not only does it remove the editorializing, it also provides needed reference to the comparison between the League and the UN.

67.160.175.115 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Mic check —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.94.145 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 212.85.28.237
Can someone revert this article to it's previous version, as it shows clear signs of vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.8.219 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

hmm. interbellum
just a thought, but shouldn't that be interbella? (generally, words ending in -um have a plural ending in -a and interbellum means between the wars, which is plural.) is there an established grammatical consensus that it is indeed interbellum?

Maybe Bellum is being used in a more abstract, all inclusive fashion to mean warfare in general, so by being between two world wars, the Interbellum period is between periods of war, hence Inter-Bellum. D Boland (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it anything to do with the case of "bellum"? Also - is it just american english - i'm sure i've seen it referred to as interbellum in (english) history books194.209.8.142 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Interbellum is Latin, so it can be used in English regardless of dialect. In fact, I'm removing that reference, because it is unverified that it is exclusively used in "American English". As a speaker of British English I can tell you that it is certainly used in Commonwealth nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.15.187 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lexical borrowing is a somewhat tricky topic, and usually the target language uses native suffixes after the word is fully adopted into the language, but may use original inflections while the borrowing still feels "foreign"; but the main rule is there's no fixed rule, and it just follows usage. (Do you say, the datum or the data?  One agendum, two agenda?  Three agendas?  You see the point.)  Back to "interbellum":  the preposition inter takes the accusative in Latin, and if you want to say the two words "between [the] wars" in Latin it would indeed be inter prep. bellan. because bella is the accusative plural of bellum (and also the nom. pl., but that's not what's called for here). Since lexical borrowing usually occurs from the uninflected version, English borrows Latin noun interbellum meaning, "between-the-wars period" we get "interbellum" in English. I personally would say "two interbellums" as I consider it fully adopted into English, but some might disagree, and it's not likely to come up much.  M-W does, in fact, list "interbella" in their dictionary, calling "interbellum" a variant. Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

More info..
The interbella was a time of great social change. This is crucial and should be included. yeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.104.127 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
The Spanish Civil War was one of the most important events in the period and it isn't even mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.58.98 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Point. this war has been added, Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Intrawar
I don't think it's important to include a distinction of "interwar period" from the infrequently used "intrawar" in this article. In any case, surely the lead is not where to put it. Per the nutshell statement at WP:LEAD, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Since the brief mention of "intrawar" is never addressed again, I'm going to remove it, on second thought. Here is the last version of the text I am removing: In contrast to the interwar period, historians refer to the time of the First World War (1914–1918) and the Second World War (1939-1945) as "intrawar" periods. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is standard disambiguation (but for not having its own topic): "intrawar" is most commonly a typo. I am also of opinion that all dictionary words should link to topics (if not to Wiktionary). But this is a continuation of a faraway conflict, as a third party says. I could stub "intrawar" if you want. JJB 16:56, 3 Oct 2010 (UTC)


 * That "third party" reasonably suggests that the conflict over "intrawar" in this article should be resolved before dealing with the fate of the redirect intrawar. User:Bridgeplayer's words at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_2 include this statement: "The way forward is to close this RFD, copy the discussion to Talk:Interwar period and await the resolution of the edit material." I hope my link is sufficient rather than copying the full discussion. In any case, that editor's words hardly refer to a "faraway conflict", since they refer to this very article, interwar period.
 * As to your claim that "intrawar" and "intra-war" are "most commonly a typo", the fact that you spent ten minutes and found nine instances of an incorrect usage does not mean that it is usually a mistake. I'm sure there are countless correct uses of the word as well, and they are probably far, far greater in number.
 * I hope we can now return to the matter at hand: resolving what, if anything, to do with "intrawar" in this article. I don't think you are addressing my objections. I do not see the value of briefly mentioning the antonym "intrawar" in the lead of this article, especially since it is not discussed further in the body of the article. Therefore, it seems to me to violate WP:LEAD. Are there reliable sources that discuss "intrawar" as more than a dictionary definition? I have my doubts on that point, which I tried to indicate in my edit summaries to this article. Your Google link is simply a dicdef of the vaguely related term "intrawar bargaining", not "intrawar" itself. Neither Wiktionary nor Dictionary.com has an entry for "intrawar".
 * To clarify: I have no problem with intrawar having its own article/stub, as long as there's sufficient detail in reliable sources to discuss the term as more than a dictionary definition. But do you believe that can be done? I don't see how. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

About Finland
I would add a link about Heimosodat to Finland section because it was pretty important part of Finnish Interwar period. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Other interwar periods/events
This list seems like OR to me. Any period between wars could be so called, but I think that to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE and OR this list should only contain common usage as verified in reliable sources of the term "interbellum" or "inter-war period" to describe periods between wars. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article should be renamed, because while it's true that "inter-war period" may refer to any period between two wars, the Interwar is the one between 1918 and 1939. walk victor falktalk 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Very poor article
For god sake, "interwar period" is just a convenient expression to denote the 20-year period between the two WWs. It's ridiculous to attempt to summarize, as this overlinked, high-school entry level article attempt to do, some political events that have occurred during those twenty years because then even a summary of political events would be at least 10 times the length of this article.

And then, why limit oneself to political events as it is done here? The expression "Interwar period" is used just as much, if not more so, in non-political contexts ("French cinema in the interwar period", "The decorative arts during the interwar period", etc.).

IMO, a broad definition of the expression would have been sufficient (avoiding pedantic references to the "Treaty of Versailles" and the "Invasion of Poland" etc. because "end of World War I" and "beginning of World War II would have been quite sufficient)..--Lubiesque (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. This article would serve its purpose reduced to one sentence ["The interwar period or interbellum is the time between the First World War (1914–18) and the Second World War (1939–45)."] Srnec (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the article follows the reliable sources-- especially in world history. It goes well beyond politics to sports and culture. eg "The "Roaring Twenties" highlighted novel and highly visible social and cultural trends and innovations. "  As for "interwar" see major books such as Military Innovation in the Interwar Period (1998) and RJ Overy, The Inter-War Crisis 1919-1939 (2007).  Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The importance of Cecil Bebb's involvement in the success of the Nationalist cause in the Spanish Civil War
Given the age of the bulk of commentary on this talk page, I think that it is unlikely that any consensus can be reached, given the lack of contributors hereon. However, as a step in the process ultimately leading to arbitration, here goes: 1) 16 Dec. 2018 - The initial contention for deleting over half of the edit made was that it was "tweaked" - BTW, the simplistic deletion of over half an edit is not "tweaking", just saying. Additionally, Rjensen made the statement "no need to mention one pilot by name" - which is editorializing of the rankest kind, especially as the "one pilot" has his own Wiki page, indicating -some- sort of importance, of which more later. 2) 11 Jan. 2019 In undoing the deletions, I stated the historical importance of this "one pilot". 3) 11 Jan. 2019 The edits were again deleted, Rjensen stating as the reason for this second deletion "need reliable secondary source that says this piloot was of major world importance". Again, "major world importance" is simply more editorializing, as "this pilot" -only- needs to be important to the Spanish Civil War, an importance which both I and the reference pointed out. 4) 12 Jan. 2019 Upon providing a second citation (Cecil Bebb's Wiki page being the first, apparently unreliable, one), the edits were again removed, because (in Rjensen's words) "he flew tourists in his little plane", a descent into patronizing condescension, and not even correct, as the Dragon Rapide was not considered a "little plane". This Rjensen follows with "the Spanish insurgents hired him for one job is all--he is not a world historic character like Franco". One "job" that was orchestrated just before the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, to bring Franco from his island exile (where he had no power) to his seat of power in Spanish Morocco, from which he and the Army of Africa made their way to Spain to support, and then take control of, the rebel forces in Spain, events which would not have occurred without this "one job". A "job" which was initiated in the UK, with the connivance of at least one active British intelligence officer. And again, Rjensen resorts to editorializing as a "reason" for deleting the edits: "not a world historic character like Franco" - an editorial which I asked for him to defend by some proof that "world historic character" was a requirement for entry onto a Wiki page. A request that has, thus far, gone unanswered. Unsurprising, given the number of people who are -not- "world historic characters" who either appear on other Wiki pages, or have their own, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.184.114 (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Interwar article covers the entire world for two decades. The Spanish Civil War gets 242 words, and only one person is mentioned --Franco. There is no mention of his generals, or the opposing generals and politicians no matter how important. There is almost no mention of battles & military operations (it mentions numerous small battles and sieges). It would be very strange indeed to have the second person mentioned = the pilot who made one trip--and his trip itself is not mentioned here. Perhaps 98.246.184.114 thinks the pilot was a secret agent working for the British government or spy agency, for which there is no evidence.  He was hired because he ran a air-travel business from London to Spain for small groups of tourists and would not arouse suspicions. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier comment, the Spanish Civil War is one of -the- most important European events of the Interwar Period, and, as you yourself note, "gets 242 words". The fact that the article itself is lacking overall in this respect has absolutely -nothing- to do with the fact that the named person is an important trigger to such an historic event. As to your rather ridiculous attempt to cast aspersions on me ("Perhaps 98.246.184.114 thinks the pilot was a secret agent") and infer that I stated something which I did not, rather than continue with your earlier failed attempt to fault the sourced added material, I'll simply say that your ad hominem attack appears to be the final resort of someone who has not only failed to prove their point, but rather did not have one to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.184.114 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of historians have explored Franco's role in tens of thousands of pages and none of them give this pilot more than a line or two. No historian of Europe mentions him at all. Wiki policy is to follor the reliable sources in their judgment of importance.  Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland
The invasion of Poland did not take place during the interwar period; it marks exactly the end of the interwar period. Thus the phrasing, in the lead paragraphs, "The territorial ambitions of the Soviets ... led to the expansion of their domains", is highly misleading. Also the lead paragraphs, per MOS:LEAD, are supposed to be "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." There's nothing in the rest of the article about the invasion of Poland, so to mention it this particular way in the lead paragraphs is distracting and confusing.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with mentioning the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and related developments, in this article, especially since they led directly to the start of the war. If there were something about that in the main body of the article, perhaps in a subsection of its own, or in the subsection about German territorial ambitions, it would be normal to refer forward to it in the lead paragraphs. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The M-R Pact was made in August 1939, within the “interwar period.” Soviet territorial ambitions didn’t magically coalesce the day after Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Soviet territorial ambitions were a significant contributor to WWII and/or — at the very least - to the interwar tensions, political dynamics, and alliances.
 * I don’t think there’s anything wrong with modifying the actual body of the article to touch on this. I have not, admittedly, read-through the body recently. Perhaps it needs to be addressed more clearly.
 * However, I find it highly suspect that you are so hyper-focused on removing the mention of “Soviet territorial ambitions” from the intro. Especially when, as I said, the M-R Pact — among other things - clearly indicate that the Soviets’ “imperial” aspirations were clearly extant during the interwar period. MWFwiki (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

UK was not part of "British Empire"
Encyclopedia Britannica "British Empire" article states : "British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government. The policy of granting or recognizing significant degrees of self-government by dependencies, which was favoured by the far-flung nature of the empire, led to the development by the 20th century of the notion of a “British Commonwealth,” comprising largely self-governing dependencies that acknowledged an increasingly symbolic British sovereignty." Rjensen (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page.
 * I do not object to the use of "Britain and its Empire" instead of "British Empire". Actually it seems counterintuitive to me to treat "British Empire" as if it didn't include Britain, but I see that our own article British Empire handles this similarly to Britannica, and this article (Interwar Period) should of course be consistent. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)