Talk:Military tourism

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Content[edit]

This article is envisaged as a counterpart to Nuclear tourism, and will contain items that are of interest to a military tourist.

The potential range of content is actually pretty massive, so if this picks up we can consider creating sub articles. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, though I wish we had more developed subtopic pages such as D-Day beaches. For example, I'd love to see a American Civil War sites article or something similar. I don't have time at the moment to start one, but I want to leave a couple of references for myself or anyone else that may want to get on that:
Texugo (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Texugo. I have added Gettysburg to this article for now, but definitely I can see the Civil War becoming its own article later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this existing article/itinerary which fits well: Military_museums_and_sites_in_Australia Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Concentration camps[edit]

I'm not sure concentration camps should be included. That was human extermination on another level, not much connected to military. Maybe POW camps could be included. Jjtkk (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think it weird to leave them out of a list of WWII-related sites. They were definitely run by the military. Texugo (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jjtkk. It's fine to list POW camps, but camps that primarily held political prisoners (e.g., Dachau) and other "undesirables," still less camps that were primarily for slave labor and those that were primarily or exclusively for mass murder were not really war-related. It's fine to have a separate topic about them and link it in this article, but I think this article should focus on tourism that relates more to actual fighting and the documentation of it. Killing defenseless people in an industrial way is not fighting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really war-related? Hmm.. Well I was thinking that the separate topic that will most likely be split off from this page would be something like World War II sites, where they would obviously fit in. It would make much more sense than making a World War II military sites page and then a separate one for a handful of concentration camps. And anyone planning a trip around WWII tourism would undoubtedly be just as interested in them. I think it incorrect to say they are unrelated. Texugo (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult. Although concentration camps (in the specific case of Nazi Germany) were run by the military, I wouldn't categorize them as military installations. On the other hand anyone interested in a World War II tour would probably have them included. I guess my preference would be a separate related article.
Also do bear in mind that as this list grows, separate articles for many subject areas may be required. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Nazi concentration and death camps: Have a look at w:List of Nazi concentration camps:
"A more complete list drawn up in 1967 by the German Ministry of Justice names about 1,200 camps and subcamps in countries occupied by Nazi Germany,[1] while the Jewish Virtual Library writes: "It is estimated that the Nazis established 15,000 camps in the occupied countries."[2]
Yes, most of the camps were destroyed, but the sites still exist, as for example in Treblinka and Chełmno. There were quite a few more than a "handful" of Nazi concentration and death camps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly if there are enough of them to merit a separate article when the time comes, that is fine. I suppose the real question is, how many of them are visitable tourist sites listed as such in their respective city articles that we can link to? At any rate, since they are still of tourist interest to anyone doing the WWII thing, I'd still propose they be left here until such time as we split off WWII sites and/or have enough concentration camps listed to merit a separate topic. Otherwise they are just left out of our topical coverage of WWII altogether, which does not serve the traveller. Texugo (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning. I would assert that the Nazi campaign of murder was separate from and actually detrimental to their war effort, but of course I understand that it was also part of their motivation for invasions, especially of countries to their east, and something they did virtually everywhere they had control, and that the liberation of these camps was a major event in the public perception and history of the war, though it was not considered an important strategic aim by the leaders of the Allied war effort. But all that said, it's fine to leave a section on Nazi concentration and death camps in this article until there's enough content to warrant splitting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with you that it was technically a separate thing, etc. I just think that from a traveller's perspective they are strongly related enough that they shouldn't be left out of our topical WWII coverage. Texugo (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most sites have some kind of memorial that can be visited and larger ones were turned into museums. The article would include be at least in Poland: Auschwitz, w:Belzec extermination camp, w:Majdanek concentration camp, Krakow - Plaszow, w:Sobibor extermination camp, Stutthof, Gross-Rosen; Germany: w:Ravensbrück concentration camp, w:Sachsenhausen concentration camp, w:Buchenwald concentration camp, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen. Jasenovac in Croatia and on. Jjtkk (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to elaborate in this discussion, starting by the fact that this article, as is now, feels more like "USA-centric Military Tourism". Let's say I dig Napoleonic Military Tourism, and travel to Paris with this in mind. Hotel Des Invalides and Arc Du Triomphe are obviously on my list. The Vendome Column, La Madeleine church and Fontainebleau Palace are not so obvious, or should they be? Should Notre Dame Cathedral (where he was crowned French Emperor) be on my list, or should I scrap it based on the site's non-military nature?

Elaborating further: I happen to dig Roman military history far more than Napoleonic; cities like Trier, Regensburg, León_(Spain) and Aosta started to exist as Roman Legion camps. Should they all be in this list as well? It´s not so obvious. By the way, about the concentration camps: they belong to WWII history, which cannot be satisfactorily be told without mentioning them. I reckon they belong in the article. Ibaman (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Ibaman. I don't think we should list anything related to the military ever. The Roman Empire is a good example since most Roman sites have some sort of military connection, and therefore a good illustration of why it blows the scope out. Mentioning Regensburg as a Roman camp is not relevant (in my opinion) unless there is some sort of museum or something to visit. Otherwise we are just being an encyclopedia rather than a travel guide.
I believe the Military_museums_and_sites_in_Australia is a good quality example of what I feel this topic should be about. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) When I earlier said that there wouldn't be any problems finding material, I had in mind including remains and memorials much much older than just from the last century (Greek and Roman sites, the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, the 30 Years' War, Wars between colonial powers in the Caribbean and elsewhere etc. ). There's really so much that could be possibly included that I don't even know where to begin. Yes, it's impossible to include everything military related throughout history, but I can't really see any reason for not including older sites like the w:Hadrian's Wall here.
There are certainly enough sites in the world to create a separate WW2 sites article with the concentration camps included. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812[edit]

I understand that there are a lot of memorials and museums for the American Civil war, but how about the American Revolutionary War and the the War of 1812? Is this a substantial area of interest in the United States? Is there still anything much to see? Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly of interest yes, and I'm sure there are plenty of related things to see that are not on the list yet. Texugo (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites in the US. Another such site is Fort Ontario in Oswego, but there are lots of them, enough for an entire travel topic if someone wanted to create it and put real effort into it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1812 could be a travel topic on its own. Start by invading the Niagara Peninsula (Laura Secord warned us about this) and head east through Fort York in Toronto, Fort Henry in Kingston (Ontario) (the Rideau Canal to Ottawa was built after the war was over), Fort Wellington in Prescott (Ontario) and eastward to Fredericton (prime United Empire Loyalist country, as the Acadian French in New Brunswick are further northeast). Cross at Saint Stephen-Calais (Maine) (infamously neutral at the time) then head back west on US 2 to New York (state); rejoin the US front line through Ogdensburg, Sackets Harbor and Oswego. Many of the primary defences would fall into an approximate line along both sides of the border; if this section were itinerary, the traveller could follow the path of a general inspecting the troops. Head south, pillage Washington, DC for old times sake, then end in New Orleans as the site of the last pointless battle after the war was already done. K7L (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I heard an interesting point of view from a (British) historian in that had the British been successful taking New Orleans (even though the war had technically already ended), the British may not have actually abided by the peace treaty. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section divisions[edit]

Currently, Military museums and sites in Australia is divided by city/state and Military tourism is one big semi-disorganised mess with two sections "Understand" (empty) and "Locations" (one huge, unmanageable list). Military tourism is hopelessly broad as presumably anything from the French-English colonial wars of the 1750's to the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stopping just short of the war zone safety warnings for conflicts currently under way. The structure of this article needs to change so that each individual section is one war or conflict, with a paragraph introducing the history of that war, start and end dates, key locations, casus belli and key participants. The list of locations for that specific war would follow, using subsections (museums, battlefields, graves, memorials) if necessary. Explain why these sites or events are of interest to the traveller. Once one war gets to be rather detailed (many sites), leave a stub of the section as a summary with the details split out into their own travel topic.

There are a few museums that cover multiple wars (Great War and WW II, for instance) but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule. The 1812 sites only cover 1812, the colonial sites only cover one specific colonial-era war, so there's no point lumping Fort York and Fort Wellington in with the two World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. K7L (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do holocaust sites count as military tourism?[edit]

I saw a few holocaust museums added to the list. Although the concentration camps were run by the SS, they were not military installations as such. They did contribute to the war effort by hosting factories that produced munitions and such like, but I still don't think this is the right categorisation? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we link to Holocaust_remembrance instead as a related topic? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Historical travel?[edit]

It might be difficult to tell whether topics such as Holocaust remembrance should count as military tourism or not. Is this article needed at all, as it consists of lists, and most of them can be inserted into Historical travel? /Yvwv (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History is a hopelessly broad topic, it should be an index with the actual content one level down. We should not be merging topic-specific content into it. K7L (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we have established that there is section of travellers who are specifically interested in the military rather than broader historical events. I would also say that visiting an aircraft carrier (hardware or installations used in military campaigns) is a different experience than visiting a palace or concentration camp (historical events)
Needless to say, no merge --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need another category?[edit]

Karbala, Iraq is currently listed under WW II/Elsewhere in Asia. It is certainly elsewhere, but the battle was around 800 AD so it does not belong under that war. I did not see a category where it would fit. Pashley (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions?[edit]

Should Military_tourism#Between_the_World_Wars mention the Spanish Civil War and/or the fighting between Italians & various Africans? Are there sites worth visiting? Museums? Pashley (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Civil War could have a separate article, possibly including the Second Republic and the dictatorship. Not sure about the title of such an article, though. /Yvwv (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance[edit]

@SHB2000: Do you think we should mention the Shrine of Remembrance's Last Post Service in the Ceremonial Functions section? The shrine commemorates the war dead of Victoria, but the Shrine Guard that performs the military drills is comprised of officers from the Victoria Police rather than active soldiers in the Australian military. The dog2 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The dog2: I think it's fine to mention the Melbourne Shine of Remembrance, even though the military drills are comprised of Victoria Police officers as you mentioned. It might be worth explicitly mentioning that, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_tourism&oldid=4524114"