2001 probably when usa decided to declare war on the whole world
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
48 points (94.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43909 readers
869 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
When multiple great powers on each of the sides are directly* in conflict, with multiple continents being theatres of war.
* as opposed to proxy wars.
Two or more Great Powers on each side
I don't think another war will be called a world war anymore because of everyone's ideas of a world war 3 being all out nuclear warfare.
For me it's more the complexity of today's geopolitics that would make it impossible to call one a world war. In my example, is north korea engaged in the war? Not really, they are just lending (or selling) soldiers. Also Russia is not at war according to Putin, it's just a military operation etc...
I've been wondering if the war in Ukraine might count as a proxy war between the US and China (who has helped bankroll the conflict)
All or most of the "powerful" countries being involved, usually directly. Basically take a look at the top military powers, if majority are active boots on ground, running military strategies, fighting and taking a wartime position domestically, you've got a world war.
Really though it's a new-ish term, and highly subjective. WW1 was the Great War until it popped off again. For a modern thought experiment - could the war on terror be considered a world war? Much of the world's fighting power was dragged into it to some degree, but most people would say no.
Long story short, it's a 'world war' when historians decide it was.
What?
They didn't call World War One World War One during World War One?
no, just like we didn't (and still don't) call what was happening a few years ago "the first COVID-19 pandemic"
I did.
I will now.
Fuckin retcons, right? Like when The Star Wars suddenly became "Episode 4" pssshh.
Callously, when the survivors look back and decide to call it one. As far as I know there isn’t an agreed upon definition.
WW1 was originally called the War to End All Wars, I think, by many at the time. WW2 eclipsed it by taking place on at least 3 continents and across every ocean. Both are also known by other names that depend on the region. The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties. The Ukraine war isn’t likely to break records like that.
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties
I'm maybe misunderstanding you here, but as far as I know there were about 100 times as many people killed in WW2 as in the US Civil war. 60 odd million vs 600,000 or so.
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.
Dude, what?
- American casualties, not total
Ohhh, that's what they meant. Thanks for clearing that up, I was really confused by that unexpected US defaultism.
Could very well be American casualties only. I didn’t look it up. I was remembering a history class where we were discussing the effects of illness and disease during wars some 20 - 25 years ago. I do remember that our teacher’s statement did not include those killed in the concentration camps, but did include those lost to illness and disease.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Nah, from a solely US perspective it's correct. There were ~1.6 million military casualties in the civil war, and ~1.07 million in WW2. But there were a few more parties involved in WW2, so it's kind of weird to frame it as less bloody. If you include civilians, estimates range from 70 to 85 million dead worldwide (not including the >20 million wounded soldiers and unknown number of wounded civilians).
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.
Uhh what? Wikipedia says ~1.6 million casualties (including wounded, ~650k dead) in the civil war, while WW2 has 24 million military deaths alone.
When will you savages learn that non-Americans are not people.
When one or more superpower countries get involved that have incredibly conflicting interests.
When the Swiss pick a side.
Okay i laughed
Major powers in direct conflict with each other.
For instance, the Spanish Civil War is seen as a precursor to World War II, but it isn't considered a part of World War II because different sides supported different belligerents, including direct military action, the conflict remained in Spain.
This is part of the reason why NATO nations have not provided direct military action to support Ukraine, as it would lead to a likely escalation to World War III.
I’d say world wars involve multiple major powers in full total war economy. We haven’t seen any major power do that since WW2 to my knowledge. Involvement of multiple nations does not make it a world war IMO, otherwise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan count, among many others in history. There’s also not side conflicts occurring in all the colonial possessions like in the other world wars.
Thats not actually happening fyi. Theyre lying to you.
Are they in the room with us right now?
Where’s the evidence of North Koreans fighting in Ukraine? There is none, because they’re not.
Well, NK and Russia have a defense treaty which obliges NK to sent military assistance to Kursk. So if they aren't, they're breaking their obligations.
Kursk is in Russia, not Ukraine.
I guess technically that makes them "not in Ukraine", but it is the same war in the end. At least for me that's the important part, not where exactly on the front line they are.