WW1 1914-1919 !!!!!!!

[scrimnet]

The war did not officially end until the peace treaties were signed in 1919...

If you want to get silly about it, a treaty does not come into force until it has been ratified by all the signatories, which means WWI technically ended when the Versailles Treaty was ratified by America in, I think, 1925.

Not so.  Treaties usually provide for coming into force for such signatory states as have ratified when a minimum number of ratifications have been reached, and coming into force immediately for subsequently ratifying states.  I am not sure what the Versailles Treaty, signed on 28 June 1919, provided, but there is no doubt that one major provision came into force on 20 January 1920, viz, the Covenant of the League of Nations, which the USA, notoriously, refused to ratify, to the eternal chagrin of Woodrow Wilson.

So far as Britain was concerned, as I have mentioned in two recent threads on 1918 electoral registers, it was provided by domestic statute that the Great War was not legally concluded until 31 August 1921.  (Anyone who thinks that that was rather late in the day should ponder how long it took for the Second World War to be legally concluded - but that is whole other story stretching to relatively recent times.)

Apropos the 1914-1919 configuration itself (which was, indeed, derived from the Versailles Treaty rather then the Armistice of 11.00 a.m. on 11.11.18), it is not infrequently found in publications relating to WW1, including a number of war memorials.

Here is the paperwork...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/versailles_menu.asp

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html

As you are not sure what it provides...

Nobody is getting silly....But I used a simple explanation which you have kindly ratified yourself, by saying that the configuration was derived from the Versailles Treaty...Which was my point...

[robbo43]

Point taken Fitzjohn, and thanks for the sources Scrimnet - much more reliable than my Daily Mail summary.

Article 440 of the treaty states -

"A first proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn up as soon as the Treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one hand, and by three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on the other hand.

From the date of this first proces-verbal the Treaty will come into force between the High Contracting Parties who have ratified it. For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the present Treaty this date will be the date of the coming into force of the Treaty.

In all other respects the Treaty will enter into force for each Power at the date of the deposit of its ratification. "

Which I guess means, pick any date you like from the first four ratifications including Germany to the last ratification.

Robert

[Fitzjohn]

No.  As I mentioned as a principle in my earlier posting, the Versailles Treaty set out a minimum number of ratifications for the Treaty to come into force for those states who had ratified it.  The minimum number was three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers plus Germany.  Unfortunately, of the two Versailles Treaty links provided by Scrimnet, one appears not to work, and the other provides only the bare text of the Treaty without a preamble or other documentation to define "Principal Allied and Associated Powers", or a note of the dates of ratification of any of them.

One may guess that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers included Britain, France, Italy and the USA, but since the last named, as previously mentioned, did not ratify, the Treaty probably came into force when Britain, France, Italy and Germany had all ratified, whenever that was - but it would have been a definite date, not an arbitrary choice from a selection of dates.

Fitzjohn

[scrimnet]

No.  As I mentioned as a principle in my earlier posting, the Versailles Treaty set out a minimum number of ratifications for the Treaty to come into force for those states who had ratified it.  The minimum number was three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers plus Germany.  Unfortunately, of the two Versailles Treaty links provided by Scrimnet, one appears not to work, and the other provides only the bare text of the Treaty without a preamble or other documentation to define "Principal Allied and Associated Powers", or a note of the dates of ratification of any of them.

One may guess that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers included Britain, France, Italy and the USA, but since the last named, as previously mentioned, did not ratify, the Treaty probably came into force when Britain, France, Italy and Germany had all ratified, whenever that was - but it would have been a definite date, not an arbitrary choice from a selection of dates.

Fitzjohn

No???

Hmmm...

Well for starters the Septics are late for everything, so their lack of signing was not a surprise...

As for the links....The first one works for me no probs, as does the second... and if you open the second you get this link amongst others...

"The Complete Treaty  with all 440 Articles in a single 498k file"

So why, in your opinion, do all the Victory medals and an awful lot of the memorials give 1914-1919?

[scrimnet]

http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/britishguide/ww1_victory_medal.htm

[scrimnet]

No.  As I mentioned as a principle in my earlier posting, the Versailles Treaty set out a minimum number of ratifications for the Treaty to come into force for those states who had ratified it.  The minimum number was three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers plus Germany.  Unfortunately, of the two Versailles Treaty links provided by Scrimnet, one appears not to work, and the other provides only the bare text of the Treaty without a preamble or other documentation to define "Principal Allied and Associated Powers", or a note of the dates of ratification of any of them.

One may guess that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers included Britain, France, Italy and the USA, but since the last named, as previously mentioned, did not ratify, the Treaty probably came into force when Britain, France, Italy and Germany had all ratified, whenever that was - but it would have been a definite date, not an arbitrary choice from a selection of dates.

Fitzjohn

Obviously there are a lot of "wrong" people out there....

http://www.worldwar-1.net/world-war-1-timelines/world-war-1-1919/world-war-1-1919-index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

 

[Fitzjohn]

I am not all clear who "the Septics" are/were; it is not a term I have ever previously come across.  If it is intended to refer to the USA, I would stress that the point is not that the USA refused to sign the Versailles Treaty, which it did (via President Woodrow Wilson), but that it refused to ratify it (via the Senate).

As for the links, I have tried the Avalon link several times by different routes, and all I can get, so far as the Versailles Treaty is concerned, is "page not found"; I can only speak as I find.  The Sandiego link certainly gives the basic text of the Treaty, but, I repeat, it does not give the preamble, which, in any treaty, necessarily sets out the High Contracting Parties, and often much other information besides, nor does it set out the signatures and seals of the Parties at the end, together with date and place of signing.  To that extent the claim of "the Complete Text" is misleading, to put it at its mildest.  Still less does the weblink refer to any schedule of ratifications, or give any other information from which one can easily deduce the date of the Treaty coming into force.  It is certainly not the standard of work I demand of myself when formally placing information in the public domain.

I fail to see the point of repeating the question why medals and memorials cite 1914-19, as I have already set out the rationale for the configuration deriving from the Vesailles Treaty, and Scrimnet has already confirmed his agreement with me on the point.

If I deemed it necessary to cite a Victory Medal link, I would avoid citing one which insults both medal holders and readers by putting "principle" in its top line instead of "principal".  In such matters, I always take the view that if an author cannot even be bothered to get minor details right, how can he/she be trusted to get major details right?

As to the two further weblinks Scrimnet cites, it is for him to comment what he finds "wrong" about them.  I have no quarrel with their general trend, but I am bound to repeat the purport of my previous paragraph that a timeline that publishes "squable" for "squabble" in its opening paragraph is not encouraging readers to take it seriously.    

[scrimnet]

Septics = Septic Tanks = Yanks....

Quits common parlance both in the British Army and civvy strasser

The wrong was written in inverted commas ie"wrong"....It was tongue in cheek and IRONIC...

If you care to read all the way through, you will see that they cite the end of the war fighting as 1918; end of war 1919 with the "SIGNING OF THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES".

I really fail to see why a typo on a website makes it to be taken any less seriously than pages of pedantry. 

The link was for you to see the back of a Victory Medal as you appear to be unaware of the dates shown thereon.

As a holder of a slack handful of medals (with more on the way) awarded by this country, and I for one do not find it insulting if there are a couple of typos...It is the remembrance that matters.

 I can't actually work out what you are agreeing with, and what you are not at the moment

[Fitzjohn]

If Septics is abbreviated Cockney rhyming slang for Yanks, I can only comment that it is not a word that has passed into general British usage, even though it may have been adopted by some parts of the British military - I say "some parts", because I have never come across it in any parts of the British military with which I have had dealings.

As to what I agree with in this thread, at the risk of repetition to boredom:

Historically, there have been two configurations for citing the dates of the First World War,

1914-1918, the latter being the date of the Armistice and the cessation of actual fighting;

1914-1919, the latter being the date of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the so-called Peace Treaty between the main belligerents.

A case can be made out for both configurations, and I do not have any preference between them; I recognise both, and suggest that it would be generally helpful to all concerned if others do the same.

There is an entirely separate, and to some extent academic, issue as to the precise date of the coming into force of the Treaty of Versailles, upon which none of the weblinks cited so far has been helpful.