Has it started already?
Would we recognise it if it did?
Who decides when a war becomes a world war? Who names them anyway?
When did the first world war, become the first world war? Well it had to be some time after we decided that the second world war existed as both act as numerical points of reference to the other. A first world war, would simply have been. 'the' world war, before the second one came along. Even then of course it was called "the Great war" for a few decades. Well that gave historians a problem after 1945. What were they to call the second world war? The even greater war, or perhaps, 'the not quite as great, but still significant war'?
The second world war itself started in September 1939 (but did it?). Once you strip it down to the foundations of what the war was premised on, I'd probably argue it started on 17th July 1936. Even after September 1939 however it was called the 'phoney war' for about 6 months. No one had called it a world war at this stage. For a period thereafter it was called "the war in Europe". It was only after Pearl Harbour that it became the second world war, and even then at the time, the "war in Europe" monicker survived to differentiate it from the "Pacific War"
There's also an issue of linking up battles and campaigns and diagnosing the existance of a war retrospectively. I mean, the "hundred years war" was a series of camapigns fought intermitently over the duration of 100 years. No one sat down and declared a "100 years war" (to be settled by judges scorecards if it goes the distance). Same as the thirty years war, or seven years war
Other wars are defined by geography of course. When I was at school we had the 'Gulf War' fought between Islamic Iran and anti Islamic Iraq. This was actually a much bigger war than is often realised and on a scale comparable to the allies advance in western Europe circa 1944/45. It ceased to be called the Gulf War though after America got involved in two much smaller wars now called 'Gulf War 1' and 'Gulf War 2'. The original Gulf War is now called the 'Iran/Iraq war'.
The Falklands War actually amuses me a little bit. That went from being the 'Falklands Crisis' (not an unfair description at the time) to the 'Falklands Conflict', but it was only with the verdict pouched and a British victory cemented in the history books that it became a fully fledged "war"
Other wars might have taken on the description of the dominant personality. I do wonder why we had "Napoleonic wars" though, and not "Hitlerist wars". Were the Napoleonic wars not actually the first real world war. Certainly the camapigns projected naval power across the golbe that resulted in battles occurring along way from the European theatre
We have occasionally seen military commentators talking in terms of 50 years to win the "war on terror" and in this regard the time frame looks much more akin to the 100 years war. The warning signs are there. Essentially its a managed peace with perma war being fought simultaneously. It's only through retrospective diagnosis that we come to recognise its existance
Coming back to July 1936. The second world war was really defined by three competing political idealogies on a collision course. It was a question of who would declare on whom first. The first taste we got was when the democratic government of Spain was challenged and overthrown by fascist backed forces of Germany and Italy (and those within Spain of course who were the minority). The democracies (Britain and France) sat back (well France did sanction involvement in the first few months before Louis Bluhm was defeated). The Soviet Union entered supplying the Republic. Another feature of that particular war however was the recruitment to the front of international volunteers (sound familiar?). Oridinary people picking up the torch to go and fight for what they saw as a matter of principle. These were the internatonal brigades of course. The Soviet Union, France, the UK and the opposition Italians were prominent. The US provided the 'Abraham Lincoln' Brigade (a majority of whom were arrested on their return to the land of the brave and the home of the free and imprisoned). Ironic given that at the same time as these Americans were fighting in Europe in support of democracy, the American bund (nazi fundraisers) were parading down third avenue in nazi uniforms raising money for Hitler with full American blessing (they've tried airbrushing these pictures from the New York archive! but they still exist on the internet. The Irish also joined in, but a majority of them fought on the side of fascism because that's who the catholic church had thrown in with (surprise, surprise) and so the Irish brigade interpreted that as where their loyalty lay (Franco disbanded them however for all sorts of amusing reasons, but it doesn't do much to dispell stereotypes)
So I'm kind of looking at this now drawing similarities between the fragmented nature of the 100 years war, the notion that world war 2 started in 1936 and the clear similarities with IS (albeit from very different sides) and wondering if history might actually record that world war 3 has started? There are after all, plenty of examples of wars, and world wars, being renamed
Would we recognise it if it did?
Who decides when a war becomes a world war? Who names them anyway?
When did the first world war, become the first world war? Well it had to be some time after we decided that the second world war existed as both act as numerical points of reference to the other. A first world war, would simply have been. 'the' world war, before the second one came along. Even then of course it was called "the Great war" for a few decades. Well that gave historians a problem after 1945. What were they to call the second world war? The even greater war, or perhaps, 'the not quite as great, but still significant war'?
The second world war itself started in September 1939 (but did it?). Once you strip it down to the foundations of what the war was premised on, I'd probably argue it started on 17th July 1936. Even after September 1939 however it was called the 'phoney war' for about 6 months. No one had called it a world war at this stage. For a period thereafter it was called "the war in Europe". It was only after Pearl Harbour that it became the second world war, and even then at the time, the "war in Europe" monicker survived to differentiate it from the "Pacific War"
There's also an issue of linking up battles and campaigns and diagnosing the existance of a war retrospectively. I mean, the "hundred years war" was a series of camapigns fought intermitently over the duration of 100 years. No one sat down and declared a "100 years war" (to be settled by judges scorecards if it goes the distance). Same as the thirty years war, or seven years war
Other wars are defined by geography of course. When I was at school we had the 'Gulf War' fought between Islamic Iran and anti Islamic Iraq. This was actually a much bigger war than is often realised and on a scale comparable to the allies advance in western Europe circa 1944/45. It ceased to be called the Gulf War though after America got involved in two much smaller wars now called 'Gulf War 1' and 'Gulf War 2'. The original Gulf War is now called the 'Iran/Iraq war'.
The Falklands War actually amuses me a little bit. That went from being the 'Falklands Crisis' (not an unfair description at the time) to the 'Falklands Conflict', but it was only with the verdict pouched and a British victory cemented in the history books that it became a fully fledged "war"
Other wars might have taken on the description of the dominant personality. I do wonder why we had "Napoleonic wars" though, and not "Hitlerist wars". Were the Napoleonic wars not actually the first real world war. Certainly the camapigns projected naval power across the golbe that resulted in battles occurring along way from the European theatre
We have occasionally seen military commentators talking in terms of 50 years to win the "war on terror" and in this regard the time frame looks much more akin to the 100 years war. The warning signs are there. Essentially its a managed peace with perma war being fought simultaneously. It's only through retrospective diagnosis that we come to recognise its existance
Coming back to July 1936. The second world war was really defined by three competing political idealogies on a collision course. It was a question of who would declare on whom first. The first taste we got was when the democratic government of Spain was challenged and overthrown by fascist backed forces of Germany and Italy (and those within Spain of course who were the minority). The democracies (Britain and France) sat back (well France did sanction involvement in the first few months before Louis Bluhm was defeated). The Soviet Union entered supplying the Republic. Another feature of that particular war however was the recruitment to the front of international volunteers (sound familiar?). Oridinary people picking up the torch to go and fight for what they saw as a matter of principle. These were the internatonal brigades of course. The Soviet Union, France, the UK and the opposition Italians were prominent. The US provided the 'Abraham Lincoln' Brigade (a majority of whom were arrested on their return to the land of the brave and the home of the free and imprisoned). Ironic given that at the same time as these Americans were fighting in Europe in support of democracy, the American bund (nazi fundraisers) were parading down third avenue in nazi uniforms raising money for Hitler with full American blessing (they've tried airbrushing these pictures from the New York archive! but they still exist on the internet. The Irish also joined in, but a majority of them fought on the side of fascism because that's who the catholic church had thrown in with (surprise, surprise) and so the Irish brigade interpreted that as where their loyalty lay (Franco disbanded them however for all sorts of amusing reasons, but it doesn't do much to dispell stereotypes)
So I'm kind of looking at this now drawing similarities between the fragmented nature of the 100 years war, the notion that world war 2 started in 1936 and the clear similarities with IS (albeit from very different sides) and wondering if history might actually record that world war 3 has started? There are after all, plenty of examples of wars, and world wars, being renamed
