The End of WWII

[Stephan H.]

Here is one for debate. Should WWII in Europe's timeline be extended to include the period from 1945-1990? Why would I suggest this? Basically, Eastern European freedom came after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. During the period after 1945, almost every Eastern European country experienced some sort of rebellion and/or gureilla war against the Soviet Union. In some cases, the same forces that fought against the Germans, simply re-directed their energy against the Soviets. Given that France and England widened the war in Europe into a World War to portect Poland's self determination after the German invasion in 1939, but Poland didn't truly become free until after the collapse of East European communisim in the late 1980s and early 1990s, should historians begin to widen their perspective on WWII and the Cold War?

[Jim O]

I would take it even a step further. I have argued that the battles that began after the incident in Sarajevo were the beginning of an almost century long war in Europe. The twenty year pause between the two world wars was a technicality.

Even if you see the two World Wars as completely separate events, the battles in the Balkans after the death of Tito should be seen as the last of the battles of World War II. Yugoslavia was a creation of World War I. Its disintegration was only delayed because the Serb population respected what Tito, a Croat, had done for them in World War II. The ethnic tensions never disappeared, and the fighting was predictable. In fact it was predicted by those with a knowledge of the region and its history.

Kosovo's recent declaration of independence is not yet recognized by most of the world. Whether more fighting will occur before the last battle of the war is fought remains to be seen.