| FORUM | LIBRARY | ARCHIVE | E-BOOKS |                     | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - World War III
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


World War III

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
The Black Prince View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Black Prince Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: World War III
    Posted: 25 Jan 2010 at 07:08

Hi all,

I recently found myself in an intense debate with a friend of mine about the probability of there ever being a Third World War. I was interested in hearing everyones thoughts about the subject. 

I personally think think that the probability is extremely low, simply because unlike in the past, their are no longer any colonies. The main attribute of the first and second world war is the fact that when the former superpowers ( Like Britain, Germany, France, e.t.c) went to war, they dragged their colonies into the war with them. As a result you ended up with Britain and her allies-who owned half the world- and Germany and her allies- Who owned the other half of the world- clashing and creating World War 1 and World War 2. 

Thus without colonies you can not have a World War because many countries will choose to remain neutral.   
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Patrinos View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 451
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Patrinos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2010 at 07:51
Most countries will find an excuse to enter the war in order to ...solve possible problems with their neighbors... War hasn't much logic and rationalism to start with...

Balkans during the WWI hadn't any colony...but its countries involved...and with great casualties.


Edited by Patrinos - 25 Jan 2010 at 07:53
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 01:42
The actual contribution of "colonies" in WWII was minimal.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 02:40
The World at War? Why not? Hugo Chavez thinks it's on, boys! If you listen to the rhetoric spewed in certain corners of the globe at this very moment, the possibility is far from a pipe dream, and in terms of the United States alone, the sharp curtailment of civil liberties within the context of "homeland security" would lead one to think that conflict is the here-and-now.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
The Black Prince View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Black Prince Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 05:55
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

The actual contribution of "colonies" in WWII was minimal.

Very true, but they did contribute. Why did they contribute?? Because of ties to their colonial masters, thus resulting in the whole world making, even minimal, contributions which = to a World War. What I am saying is that rule out colonies and all you left with is alliances, and even if each country had ten allies, it is not enough to amount to a World War.      
Back to Top
Ziegenbartami View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ziegenbartami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 06:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The World at War? Why not? Hugo Chavez thinks it's on, boys! If you listen to the rhetoric spewed in certain corners of the globe at this very moment, the possibility is far from a pipe dream, and in terms of the United States alone, the sharp curtailment of civil liberties within the context of "homeland security" would lead one to think that conflict is the here-and-now.


Not to mention the worldwide US military commitment; there are US military forces deployed in over 100 countries around the world, plus all the US bases on foreign soil.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 06:53
Originally posted by The Black Prince The Black Prince wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

The actual contribution of "colonies" in WWII was minimal.

Very true, but they did contribute. Why did they contribute?? Because of ties to their colonial masters, thus resulting in the whole world making, even minimal, contributions which = to a World War. What I am saying is that rule out colonies and all you left with is alliances, and even if each country had ten allies, it is not enough to amount to a World War.      
There was a real risk of WWIII during the cold war in the time when most of colonies became free. So, I don't really see a correlation here. Regardless of the colonies, world powers always form alliances and unions. If there is another WW it will be between different alliances of the world powers. And you don't need colonies here. The weak states will be eventually drafted to one camp or another by their powerful neighbors...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 10:41
I guess it's theoretically possible to have a world war that doesn't involve colonialism. Historically though there hasn't been one. Strip out colonial issues from WW2 and you're only left with a European war between Germany and its neighbours (the Pacific war and the African campaigns) were all about colonies). Same is true - and even more so - with WW1, where you'd have to take out the whole Austrian/Russian campaigns since they were essentially concerned with the colonisation of the Balkans.
 
And of course the extra-European part of the Seven Years War was all aboout colonies.  
 
Extend the concept to economic colonisation and the Prince is even more right in his proposition.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 14:52

Hello to you all

There will be a world war, its just a matter of when and why.
 
Both previous WW had nothing to do with colonies. There were two or more great powers on stage and survival was for the strongest. Even if Germany didn't start WWII the USSR would. Even if the USSR didn't it and other european powers would have taken the advantage of any regional conflict and start a world war (this was the scenario of WWI).
 
With the calibre of politicians democracy brought to countries like the US the potential of a new world holocaust is much greater than ever. Back during the cold war responsible people reached the helm of power but right now there is a serious threat that the next president is a woman who goes to witch doctors and thinks God speaks to her. How long until she nukes a country under orders from God?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 15:03
Colonies as the underlying reason for world wars? Somehow, I suspect the thesis tenuous and its assertion requires the minimalization of greater factors behind chaotic confrontation. Perhaps the proposition is but a hangover from too much reading of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Most certainly competition for the Ohio Valley did not ignite the Seven Years War no more so than the ear of a certain British pirate generate The War of the Austrian Succession. In a way the thesis demands one forget a much older premise in European constructs of causus belli: "No peace beyond the line." That expanding technology broadened the theatre of operations to far older European tensions is indisputable; however, to supplant the purely internal tensions of European conflict with the lust for colonies is but a "cart before the horse" moment.
 
Now, with regard to World War II, to posit the archipelagos of the circum-Pacific as the principal factors for the much broader Sino-Japanese conflict has to raise an eye-brow [was the Japanese rhetoric of "liberation" just lip-service?]. Likewise, to pretend that the handful of troops given Rommel constituted a serious effort at the domination of Africa even if one threw in the Italians appears as little more than a corollary to the stale "soft-underbelly" premise ever haunting one Winston Churchill. How then would one explain the early consensus on the primacy of the ETO? 


Edited by drgonzaga - 26 Jan 2010 at 15:05
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 15:08
If there is a WWIII, there won't be many human beings left. I think Einstein said something like 'I don't know what WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones'.
 
Unless of course the 'playas' decided to call a 'fair fight' and not use any military technology developed after 1944. Could work.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 15:25
Al Jassas wrote:
 
With the calibre of politicians democracy brought to countries like the US the potential of a new world holocaust is much greater than ever. Back during the cold war responsible people reached the helm of power but right now there is a serious threat that the next president is a woman who goes to witch doctors and thinks God speaks to her. How long until she nukes a country under orders from God?
 
Boy! Did the above bring a twinkle to the eye and add a nice jolt to my morning java! Immediately I recalled the "Helen of Troy" thesis that was in vogue back in the 80s touching upon the bellicosity of the female when their cute little fingers were on the levers of power. There is an interesting web site--almost a "most wanted" poster of the usual suspects:
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 16:14
Without colonies entering the picture, where would there have been any fighting in WWI? In Europe, only. NOT a world war.
 
Without colonies entering the picture, where would there have been any fighting in WW2? In Europe, and possibly one might also include between China and Japan, though Japanese colonisation was a factor there also.
 
Without colonies entering the picture, where would there have been any fighting in the Seven Years War? In Europe only. Britain would probably never even have been involved.
 
If it wasn't for colonies, none of the European powers would even have had forces deployed outside Europe.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 16:53
But in all those conflicts the main battle theaters were in Europe and the fate of the wars was decided in Europe and not in some distant Aftican, Asian or American colonies.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 16:54
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Al Jassas wrote:
 
With the calibre of politicians democracy brought to countries like the US the potential of a new world holocaust is much greater than ever. Back during the cold war responsible people reached the helm of power but right now there is a serious threat that the next president is a woman who goes to witch doctors and thinks God speaks to her. How long until she nukes a country under orders from God?
 
Boy! Did the above bring a twinkle to the eye and add a nice jolt to my morning java! Immediately I recalled the "Helen of Troy" thesis that was in vogue back in the 80s touching upon the bellicosity of the female when their cute little fingers were on the levers of power. There is an interesting web site--almost a "most wanted" poster of the usual suspects:
 
 
Hello Doc
 
I have nothing against women, I have something against Palin. I like Thatcher and think she has done a great job (still remember her tears all those years ago despite being but a child then). I gave the example of Palin to demonstrate how low the qualifications for public office has become so much so that a woman from the provinces who couldn't even name a single country was near becoming its VP and how a guy who was just 6 years ago a novice part-time provincial politician became the president.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 16:57
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If there is a WWIII, there won't be many human beings left. I think Einstein said something like 'I don't know what WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones'.
 
Unless of course the 'playas' decided to call a 'fair fight' and not use any military technology developed after 1944. Could work.
 
Fat chance! If you will pardon this borrowing: Nuke them all, God will sort out his own!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2010 at 20:29
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

But in all those conflicts the main battle theaters were in Europe and the fate of the wars was decided in Europe and not in some distant Aftican, Asian or American colonies.
 
Isn't that what I said?
 
We call them 'world' wars because they were 'global', but in fact without the 'distant Arfican, Asian or American colonies' they would not have been 'world' wars. Just European ones. (Or in 1937 on, a Far eastern war, like the earlier Sino-Japanese wars. We won't call them world wars.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 00:04

Surely there will be. Possibly an attack on Israel will start the whole thing.

Iran attacks Israel

Israel Retaliates

America sides with Israel

Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea side with Iran

Western Europe sides with Israel
 
WWIII has begun.
 
Maybe something along those lines would be my guess.


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 27 Jan 2010 at 00:05
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 02:36
The Chinese do not give a rat's ass for Iran and as for the Russians they would simply watch their "old republics" make the most of the opportunity given the Azeri and Turkmen minorities. Now as for the mention of Venezuela, poor Hugo, his "demise" is far more probable than World War III. In all probability, 2010 will witness not war but the implosion of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 02:57
Now back to the battle over nomenclature. One can either accept the convenience of early 20th century egocentrism and call the consequences of Wilhelm II's insecurities the World War [later amended with the numeral I] or identify almost every European conflict after 1501 as "global" in scale.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
The Black Prince View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Black Prince Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 09:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I guess it's theoretically possible to have a world war that doesn't involve colonialism. Historically though there hasn't been one. Strip out colonial issues from WW2 and you're only left with a European war between Germany and its neighbours (the Pacific war and the African campaigns) were all about colonies). Same is true - and even more so - with WW1, where you'd have to take out the whole Austrian/Russian campaigns since they were essentially concerned with the colonisation of the Balkans.
 
And of course the extra-European part of the Seven Years War was all aboout colonies.  
 
Extend the concept to economic colonisation and the Prince is even more right in his proposition.

Hi all,

Thank you very much gcle2003, I don't think everyone is understanding that point. WW1 + WW2 - colonies = European Wars not world wars. So in all I do not think you will get a World War again for a very long time, yes there might be a War of the Super powers, but it still will not be a world war.   
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 15:05
Super powers, as I said, we'll force their numerous puppet states to fight togher with them even though they aren't colonies "officially."
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 16:34
Everyone forgets why the monniker "World War" was chosen as a result of the delirium over "colonies": nation states outside the European horizon became involved. Naturally, the conflict had nebulous names during its course and the "World War" is essentially an afterthought. But then again, one could easily claim the persistence of the label is but another vestige of good old eurocentrism.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 16:56
Regarding participation of other states in a possible conflict between the world powers, one just should look at the Iraq coalition force there are plenty of small states participating from Central American republics to Estonia and Georgia, yet they do not have any vital interests in Iraq at all.
 
There won't be any difference in WWIII.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 18:24
Not all that many colonies have been 'officially' colonies. In fact I'm not sure what you mean by 'Colonies'. The Colonial Office in the UK (when there was one) didn't only deal with entities called colonies, and places like India and Canada were outside its purview.
 
We are talking here more meaningfully of all territories that were only involved in the wars because the powers that controlled them - or to which they felt bound - were fighting.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
The Black Prince View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Black Prince Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2010 at 06:45
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
We are talking here more meaningfully of all territories that were only involved in the wars because the powers that controlled them - or to which they felt bound - were fighting.

Once again gcle2003 Clap brilliant, my thoughts exactly.    


Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Super powers, as I said, we'll force their numerous puppet states to fight togher with them even though they aren't colonies "officially."

I completely agree with that Sarmat, but lets say for argument sake, each of the super powers has 6 "Puppet states" , in fact lets say 10 "Puppet states" , it still would not be enough to cause a World War. 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2010 at 13:41
It will be more than 6. "Iraq coaltion" has over 30 states, for example.
 
 If the "world war" is meant as a high numbers of participating states, it won't be a problem at all. But the fighting, again will be between the superpowers in some strategic areas. Numerous allies will just play a role of creating an impression of some kind of international "support" and "justification."
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 00:55
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The Chinese do not give a rat's ass for Iran and as for the Russians they would simply watch their "old republics" make the most of the opportunity given the Azeri and Turkmen minorities. Now as for the mention of Venezuela, poor Hugo, his "demise" is far more probable than World War III. In all probability, 2010 will witness not war but the implosion of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 
Surely the Chinese care for Iran, as the Iranians export valuable products to China, including oil and fuels. However, the Russians and Chinese have such a bond that they would form a cohesive unit if one had been threatened, or went into a large scale war.
Back to Top
Ziegenbartami View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ziegenbartami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 03:12
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

However, the Russians and Chinese have such a bond that they would form a cohesive unit if one had been threatened, or went into a large scale war.

I don't see the Russians and Chinese having any sort of bond that they would ally with each other if it came to war. In fact, the Sino-Soviet split in the 70s would indicate contrariwise.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2010 at 04:30
My points already been made, but I'll say it anyway.
The Great War (or should I say the European War?) and World War Two were primarily European conflicts. The Japanese half of WW2 was really a completely different war happening at the same time.
 
There were conflicts fought between Europeans in other parts of the world, and there were non-Europeans in service of the Europeans. But the majority of people were just watching the Europeans fight it out. WW1 included the Ottoman Empire and Darfur but were still talking about a few Great Powers and those under their influence.
By this definition a serious war between Russia and the US now would probably be a world war. Though I think such a prospect is unlikely between any countries with Nukes.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.