Talk:Second Thirty Years' War

Untitled
"a series of conflicts across time and space" ??? is this science fiction?
 * fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the phrase "across time and space" is normally only used in science fiction, clearly. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Refs need tidying up
Ganpati23 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

When I add refs to pages, people come along and tidy them up.

They add a litlle a,b,c if the same page is reffed 3 times for example.

I don't know how to do this.

Please help.

Many thanks.


 * I can look after this for you. It would be a good idea to add the ISBN for each book used as a source; it adds an extra level of verification as to which edition has the material. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have placed the sources into citation templates, . This facilitates processing by bots, which will search the internet for additional information to add to the citations, such as doi's and isbns. I ran the Citation Bot and it has combined the citations for you. I will do another step tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Can you show me how you get this template for this way of book referncing as maybe I should do it for other page (I'm a newbie) Listen to Britain.  I've lost the McDonough book, so I had to find the ISBN on the web, but I checked multiple sources and they all agree.  All the other books I still have so I just took the ISBNs out of those.  Many thanks.  Ganpati23 (talk)13:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I created a separate section for the explanatory note with . Note it now has a lower-alpha superscript instead of being a numbered reference. That's one advantage of this system. I placed the citations into templates (short form Harvard notation templates) with two edits, . Wrapping the citations in an sfn template instead of a tag means that citations that are used more than once are automatically collated for you by the mediawiki software. Also, the citations become clickable links down to the bibliography. I will look at Listen to Britain another day; I am gonna work on my own project for a while. You can have a look at the information at Citation templates to get started; wiki markup is complex and there's a sharp learning curve! But you're a sharp guy, so it's a good fit! See you later, -- Dianna (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted Stub class
As I've added the counter arguments section, I've deleted stub class, as I believe it goes into enough detail to go up a grade.

Is this ok?

Am I right to do this myself? Ganpati23 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this considered bogus and why is it still stub class?
All the ISBNs. When Dianaa requested a reassessment, they guy who did it refused to upgrade. He said that it needed more refernces and more still to convince him it isn't bogus.

1) I've got about 80 refernces from 30 books, chapters and articles.  How many more are needed?  I see many B-class articles with far fewer.

2) What does he mean by bogus?  As it says that editors are not meant to be sarcastic or abusive to newbies, I assume he's serious.  But if that's the case, he can't actually know much/anything about this issue, so why should he be the judge of this article's veracity?

3) I'd linked the Nov 39 speech by Hitler where he admits this, and the articles by Dray and Goda where they make these points clearly.  Why not just read the articles and see what I'm saying is true, and is the current consensus?

4) I haven't linked it, but in a recent review of a Goda book by D.C. Watt, he says that he now accepts the inter-continental Stufenplan arguments of Goda, Hildebrande, Hillgruber, Rich, Broszat, Weinberg etc.  This is the consensus.  How is this article bogus?  Are 30 different authors not enough - all top historians in their field?

5) Henig shows clearly the 4 breaks from the past represented by Hitler's foreign policy.  Bell shows that in the mid-20s under Stresseman that 'the war chapter was closed' (A. Chamberlain) and that there was no inherent reason why a second war should break out. Weinberg believes that Hitler alone, and not the post-WW1 settlement was to blame and Rich calls Hitler a 'novus actus interveniens', a complete break from the past.  All of this is refernced.  What more do I need to do to show this isn't bogus?

6) If you read the Dray article, you'll see he's developing Hinsey's work on the abnormality of Hitler's plans being the sole cause.  Had war broken out upto and including Munich, then you could argue that some form of post-WW1 imbalance could be to blame.  But after Munich, then it can only be Hitler.  No historian disputes this now - as I say, people like Watt who previously disputed the Stufenplan now accept it.

7) So why is this considered bogus?  Every statement is referenced, and they're all top historians.  If he's calling this bogus, he can't know much about this issue as it's generally accepted.  I spent all last year studying this, and put this article on the course facebook page, and all my former fellow-students feel it's an excellent summary or the debate.  This formed part of my double final 3rd year essay last year at I got a very high distinction.  I've sent the page to my tutor from last year and he agrees that it accurately reflects the subject and the current state of the historiographical debate.  No-one can see anything wrong with it.

8) So if it's bogus, what bits?  Which historian is being disagreed with?  Which statements need extra refernces?  (And why would someone waste all that time writing a bogus page with references that can be checked online?)

Many thanks. Ganpati23 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Some historians certainly do use the term a "Second Thirty Years War" as an analogy to explain links between the First and Second World wars. At first glance, though, the article as it stands is a little confusing, and doesn't always explain, as clearly as it could, how particular themes link back to the academic argument in the post-war years. My advice would be to rework the first section so that, rather than tackling the "Arguments against the Second Thirty Years War thesis", the article starts off by describing what the thesis actually is. This would make it easier for a reader (or reviewer) to see how the details of Versailles or the stufenplan fits into the later discussion - as you go through the article at the moment, it barely mentions the Second Thirty Years War. I'd also consider explaining more clearly what the debate over the STYW was, and why it is significant in historiographical terms. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was a stub with just what's now the introduction. I was simply trying to show the historical consensus against that.  But I will put a bit in explaining how Foch and Churchill led to Taylor and Fischer.  But hopefully what I've written shows that historians now agree that most German nationalists simply wanted peaceful revision, not another total war.  Hitler was uniquely different.  Ganpati23 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think another problem (which is related to the request for more citations), is that the citations in this article aren't formatted correctly - you have citations directly after a person's name, for example: "Rich[27] agrees..." The citation should always go after the end of the sentence (or after a subordinate clause if it is evidence for only part of a sentence), not after a name. The way the citations are formatted now creates the impression that there are sentences without references, which I think explains the confusion over references. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed the refs as suggested. They're all at the end of sentences now, so I hope that's right.  Also citations needed have been done.  Regards.  Ganpati23 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. Reassessed as B class. Discredited theories require careful handling. (WP:FRINGE). A good example of the handling of a discredited theory is phlogiston theory. I know it would not warrant a B rating on MILHIST for references, but its structure is far superior. This leads to some suggestions for improvement:
 * The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article. That is because there are derivative works that use only one or the other. This article's lead does not do that; it is more of an introduction, in that it contains material not found in the rest of the article. Note that the lead does not require references, because everything in it is supposed to be referenced in the body. (WP:LEAD)
 * It is conventional to start with a clear explanation of what the theory actually was. The lead section of this article is unclear about this. (Did it start in 1912 or 1914?)
 * What is the history of the theory? Who propounded it? This is currently split between the lead and the body's introduction.
 * What arguments demolished the theory? I would expect to see some acknowledgement of the Causes of World War II article. There is no need for a discussion here about the causes of the war; this article is supposed to be all about the efforts of historians to frame it. Statements like As Bell shows, it was not World War I that caused World War II, "the depression bought Hitler, and Hitler bought the war." switch my brain to "marking undergraduate papers" mode, and I start reaching for a red pen. It is argument from authority, and a gross oversimplification.
 * What, if anything is left of the concept?
 * Regards Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that.
 * Basically, this article was a stub with just what is now the introduction. I simply intended to show how the theory is now discredited.  That's why it doesn't flow.  But I suppose I'd better rewrite the intro so it all connects, and write a section about the origins of the theory, the arguments for it and the historiography up to Fischer and Taylor in the '60s.
 * The Bell statement comes from his book The Second World War in Europe. Part 1 (50 pages out of 300 in total) has as Ch.2 'The case for the 30 yrs war', and Ch.3 is 'The case against'.  He effectively sums up CH.3, his argument against the 30 yrs war thesis, with the line about Depression->Hitler->War.  (And as you can see from the bits later in the book I quote, this is what he believes disproves the theory - in the mid-20s around Locarno time, all sides expected a gradual, peaceful revision of Versailles.  That's why the quote's in, it sums up his main argument against the 30 yrs war thesis).  I've added quotes from Gooch and Craig to back him up.  Ch.4 is the historiography, where he uses the works of other historians to justify his criticisms of the theory.
 * The concepts useful because it helps explain the anti-Versailles posse's beliefs from the inter-war years (Foch, Smuts, Keynes etc) and the immediate post-war period where excuses were being looked for. A.J.P. Taylor's book Origins... had tremendous influence.  All Germans are bad, and it's only cos they're occupied that they're not goose-stepping again.  However it's now been completely dismissed, like the 30 yrs war theory itself.
 * But yeah, I'll re-write the other guy's intro so it maakes sense, the theory and its historiography is explained, etc, so that Taylor can be disproved by all Hitler's plebicite's and Reichstag votes being simply for peaceful revision. Along with the Goda article and the authors in the Mrtell (ed) book which specifically rip his book to shreds.
 * Thanks for the advice. Many thanks. Ganpati23 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Research
Unfortunately, this article reads like Original Research, or a personal essay. It may be salvageable but it's not written in a style or tone appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a highly debated and discussed topic -- Origins of WWII -- but the article treats it like there is definite answer [ie. WWI did not cause WWII] by selecting those sources that support that view. It would be better if it didn't try so hard to prove a point and rather just presented the various POV's. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticise - why has it been changed to ize?
In English, the 'ise' ending is far more common and has been for the last few centuries.

If you look at UK newspapers and the BBC, the style guides invariably use 'ise'.

So unless anyone can give me a good reason not to, I'll change it back in a bit.

From memory, Wiki says that we should use the form it was started in. When I started editing the page, there were no conflicts - it was only a stub. So I added the criticism section, and in that I use the word criticise.

So we should stay with that, imo.

The page should use one form or the other and as 'ise' was used originally then we should stick with it.

Cheerio.

Ganpati23 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

History vs Historiography
This article is not a history of the period. There are many other articles on that topic. This is about the term and its usage ie. historigraphy. History of the period is a WP:CFORK. -- Green  C  00:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Why has all the historiography been moved and why was the page title changed?
This page was about the 2nd 30 Years War thesis - that the "armistice for 20 years" was bound to be true. As we know, many believe that Versailles and the crash led inexorably to Hitler and WW2. The historiography was to show that Hitler's long-term Stufenplan is considered completely abnormal. Dray, Hinsey and Goda give a serious counter argument to the idea. When and why was it changed?Ganpati23 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Too long, too detailed bordering on if not actual original research. Read like an essay and argumentation, not succinctly reporting what historians said concerning the Second Thirty Years' War thesis. - according to who? Just say that, and who said it, and why they said it, but don't show it, this isn't an essay with a thesis. --  Green  C  16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Omission
There is nothing at present about which historians have used the term or what they meant by it (other than the period 1914-45. Norvo (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point it is not limited to professional historians or even originated with them. -- Green  C  00:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Add a source concerning what the thesis is and its general rejection. -- Green  C  00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Periodization vs. Historian debates
It's a curious thing to see a term of periodization which was coined by a popular political figure working outside of academia then spark intense and lasting debates among academic historians. The phrase was clearly meant to have dramatic political impact for a popular audience.

Yet a historian comes along and hangs a "thesis" around its neck which then becomes a target for other historians to tear down. The period doesn't need to have a thesis at all, it can still work as simply a way to put emphasis on a single period in time that has commonalities. It does not require that one war directly caused another, but at the same time, it should not ignore commonalities through out that make speaking of it as a single period useful. We speak of a 'Middle Ages' even though no such thing actually existed and it was extremely diverse in time and place, because it is a useful division for study. Indeed, the Thirty Years' War itself was not a single conflict where one war caused another, it was simply a period of chaotic increased violence. -- Green  C  01:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Page issues
Agree with the people saying this appears to be WP:FRINGE and WP:OR, and there's no evidence of significant coverage of the concept and not simply of people using the idea in a throw-away fashion. FOARP (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The OR problem was this version from 2017 and earlier. The concept itself is not OR, it clearly exists in the world, we are reporting its meaning, usage and history. As for FRINGE I dunno, that requires it to "depart significantly from the prevailing view", yet here is a history professor at Yale using it (one of the more conservative institutions). Most periodization schemes will have critics, the existence of some critics doesn't make fringe. Also not sure what the "prevailing view" is since periodization is by its nature just another way to slice and dice time in a way that emphasis certain aspects, thus they overlap eg. much of the renaissance took place in the middle ages - which you call it depends what you want to emphasize. -- Green  C  21:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)