# Defining the "World wars" after WW2



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2006)

WW III ended with the utter defeat and dissolution of the USSR and the dismantling of the "Wall" and inter German border.

WW IV officially began Sept 11 2001, and is being fought in SW Asia, with subsidiary theaters opening in East Africa, Indonesia and enemy military actions in Europe and North America. Enemy activity is also reputedly occurring in the "three corners" region of South America, where Hugo Chavez is issuing identity cards to people of Middle Eastern origin, as well as facilitating drug smuggling into North America and terrorist attacks against the Colombian oil industry.

North Korea seems determined to get involved, although I would characterize this as trying to take advantage of the ongoing situation in SW Asia, just as the Pacific theater in WW II was prompted by Japan's Imperial ambitions being stoked by the idea the European "empires" were so heavily committed against Germany and Italy they would be unable to defend their South East Asian possessions. Each of these regional theaters has enough overlapping actors and are concurrent in time so it is very possible to characterize the overall narriative as WW IV.


(Edit by M.O. to correct thread title after split.)


----------



## chaos75 (6 Jul 2006)

I think WW3 has come and gone (Cold War 1950ish to 1989), and according to who you talk to or what you read, we are in a limited WW4 presently.  Similar to the last post, no one can predict what kind of future war one would be.  An educated guess could be made with regards to current technology weaponry etc, but no one knows what kinds of actions countries would take and subsequent actions etc etc.  Maybe the next world war will be like Independence day and be against invading aliens, who knows.


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2006)

Historically speaking, we might actually be looking at our umpteenth world war vice simply our third, fourth or whatever based on the 20th century as being "ground zero" for world wars....


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Historically speaking, we might actually be looking at our umpteenth world war vice simply our third, fourth or whatever based on the 20th century as being "ground zero" for world wars....



Even given the conception of the "World" was quite a bit smaller than today, Alexander the Great (July 356 BC — June 11, 323 BC) can be said to have waged the first "World War", given that he was attempting to subdue every civilized and semi civilized nation known in the Greek world in his attempt to reach the shores of the World Ocean. (Assuming he actually had conquered India, one can only imagine what would have happened when he realized there was China, as well as the various civilizations and kingdoms in South East Asia....).

Although not global wars, the Crusades were displays of impressive logistical capabilities when the Europeans could transport armies and their logistics trains from Europe to the Holy Lands starting in the early Middle Ages.

The Seven Years War (1754 and 1756–1763), was the first war fought on a global scale, which is pretty impressive considering the lack of reliable communications over long distances and the transit time to get anywhere by sailing ship.

The Napoleonic Wars were pretty close, the War of 1812 is partially due to his machinations in an attempt to draw away British military and economic power (an example of overlapping actors), although there was enough separation in time and space from the main theaters to regard it as a separate war altogether. As well, there really was no Asian theater of operations during the Napoleonic Wars.

Global wars became common in the 20th century simply because communications and logistics had finally arrived to the point where global operations could be supported. The Persian Gulf War really was the first war where space assets and infrastructure played a key role, and OIF pioneered the use of high bandwidth or broadband infrastructure in combat operations. The USAF is on one of its periodic forays into conducting combat operations from Near Earth Orbit (NEO), and on it goes.


----------



## Nieghorn (6 Jul 2006)

Good points, a_majoor.  I was at the War Museum on Sunday to look at their 'Clash of Empires' exhibit, where it is expressed that the Seven Years War was the first to be waged on a global scale.  Funny that despite this being an area of interest to me, I never really thought of it in such terms until then.


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> WW III ended with the utter defeat and dissolution of the USSR and the dismantling of the "Wall" and inter German border.



I dont often disagree with a-majoor, but this is one of them.  If you consider the 'Cold War' as WW III, then the war aint over yet!   A major ideologoical and economic battle was won with the wall falling and the breakup into republics, but there's still a lot of 'cold' activity going on out there...


----------



## Shamrock (6 Jul 2006)

Allow me to interject.

After the declared end of the Cold War, several corporations began acting all corporationally and trademarked several terms (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83969,00.html).  One such term was "World War" by none other than Coca Cola.  Not to be outdone, Pepsi trademarked "Global Conflict" followed by IBM's "Multi-national Non-peaceful Resolution of International Disagreements."    Naturally, this has caused considerable grief in political environments because not only do the corporations control the names for these battles, but the amount of allied forces going in to conflict may also infringe upon the trademarks.  Without appropriate corporate backing and approval, countries can't afford to go to war.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I dont often disagree with a-majoor, but this is one of them.  If you consider the 'Cold War' as WW III, then the war aint over yet!   A major ideologoical and economic battle was won with the wall falling and the breakup into republics, but there's still a lot of 'cold' activity going on out there...



The USSR is no more, even the constituent "republics" which have been under Russian control since the time of the Tsars are now independent nations and the land empire owned by the USSR is now "New Europe". While Russia may not be our friend, and certainly the successor state may be engaged in the same sorts of activities that the USSR used to do with the KGB, GRU and various other agencies, it is indeed a successor state and can be considered a new nation.

The growing presence of the Americans and Anglosphere in the "Near Beyond" and throughout south west and south Asia should also be a good indicator that things are quite different; instead of the "Red Dawn" scenario of Soviet Bloc troops invading North America, we see "Blue Dawn" as Western investors establish ties and put down roots.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Jul 2006)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> I think WW3 has come and gone (Cold War 1950ish to 1989), and according to who you talk to or what you read, we are in a limited WW4 presently.



I can't say for certain, but I suspect that nobody who lived through either world war would ever describe anything that's happened since 1945 as WWIII or WWIV.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2006)

why not? Is there a difference between dodging bullets in Vietnam and Malaysia, Angola and Armenia, Tibet and Afghanistan, any different from doing the same in Holland and the Phillipines, Greece and Libya, Guam and the Rhine? The fact that one took about 6 years, and the other about 50, doesn't impact the fear and boredom that the soldiers on the various front lines felt.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2006)

pradacowboy said:
			
		

> why not? Is there a difference between dodging bullets in Vietnam and Malaysia, Angola and Armenia, Tibet and Afghanistan, any different from doing the same in Holland and the Phillipines, Greece and Libya, Guam and the Rhine? The fact that one took about 6 years, and the other about 50, doesn't impact the fear and boredom that the soldiers on the various front lines felt.



I agree. While my original Tour was for 13 months, I had the option of 2 - 6 month extensions. In WWII, they were not given the option, but the mindset was totally different then. It was go in, stay until the job is done, while during my era, it was go for 13 months, come back for awhile, then go again.  

Now I see my son do 6 month tours, and stand down for a year. I like what I see. It is better for the soldier, the soldier's family, and for the Armed Force. It takes more manpower, but the ones going over are more motivated and fresher. The time back allows the soldier to wind down, and reevaluate his/her role, and make changes. 

Combat is combat, and has not changed for the soldier from WWII to now in relation to the impact the fear and boredom that the soldiers on the various front lines felt, whether for 3 months, 6 months, a year, or longer.


----------



## Goober (8 Jul 2006)

Calling the Cold War as the Third World War and everything since Sept 11, 01 as the Fourth World War undermines the sacrafices made by the millions who died in the First and Second World War. In my opinion.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2006)

Goober said:
			
		

> Calling the Cold War as the Third World War and everything since Sept 11, 01 as the Fourth World War undermines the sacrafices made by the millions who died in the First and Second World War. In my opinion.



How do you figure? Nobody is saying they were less honorable, just the two focuses were different, that's why the different names. 

The names, whatever they are, simply relate to periods, not the sacrifices made by the men and women in service at that time.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2006)

Goober said:
			
		

> Calling the Cold War as the Third World War and everything since Sept 11, 01 as the Fourth World War undermines the sacrafices made by the millions who died in the First and Second World War. In my opinion.


how? How does acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers who fought on 6 continents, for 5 decades, diminish any sacrifice made prior to their own? How does acknowledging the thousands of soldiers/LEO who have/are fought/fighting terrorists on 6 continents, and have been doing so for 3 years, with no end-date in sight, diminish any sacrifice made prior to their own?

edited for a (rather severe) spelling error


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jul 2006)

Goober said:
			
		

> Calling the Cold War as the Third World War and everything since Sept 11, 01 as the Fourth World War undermines the sacrafices made by the millions who died in the First and Second World War. In my opinion.



The Cold War was as much an idealogical and an economic one as one fought by steely eyed men in a thousand dustups around the planet.  The whole world was involved, therefore, ipso facto, QED, etc,  it was the next, or 3rd, world war.  I should know, I was there when we won it.    ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Jul 2006)

pradacowboy said:
			
		

> why not? Is there a difference between dodging bullets in Vietnam and Malaysia, Angola and Armenia, Tibet and Afghanistan, any different from doing the same in Holland and the Phillipines, Greece and Libya, Guam and the Rhine? The fact that one took about 6 years, and the other about 50, doesn't impact the fear and boredom that the soldiers on the various front lines felt.



I think the threshold for calling something a world war should be somewhat higher that the presence of gunfire.

Both world wars involved extensive and sustained operations for years at a time on a scale that has never been (and we hope will never be) seen since.  Armed forces expanded, in some cases, to many times their peacetime strength.  The war was virtually the entire focus of the countries involved.  The very existance of countries was at stake.  The civilian population was involved to an extent that we could never envision happening today (e.g. through the extensive "bombs and bullets" industry, rationing, and having to worry about the enemy literally overrunning their homes).  Finally -- and this is why we call it a world war -- virtually the whole of the developed world was involved and they were fighting on almost every continent.

It's the difference between a hockey player slugging it out with one from the opposing team (this hapening several times throught the game), and a series of bench-clearing brawls.  The punches are just as hard, but the circumstances are quite different.


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

Here's my two cents: Someday in the future, historians will look back at the 20th Century and classify the world wars and the Cold War as one interconnected and prolonged conflict similar in nature to, say, the Hundred Years War. Meanwhile, here's what I think: The Cold War _was_ a war in the truest sense of the word. It spanned the globe and millions of people were involved with it in one form or another. There were numerous conflicts that arose as part of the larger picture, among them the Korean War, Vietnam, the Afghan War, and numerous wars of "liberation" in Africa and other places.

Additionally, and mostly forgotten, are the thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, not just American, but of many nations, who died in training accidents, mishaps, etc, during the Cold War. These service members were casualties of war just as surely as if they'd been killed on a beach head, or a patrol. (And there were thousands and thousands of them over the years of the late 20th Century)

NATO and the Warsaw Pact devoted a huge amount of resources and international prestige to the Cold War. It was the defining series of events in the post World War II era. Think about the other events that came out of this era– the space race, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the EC, German reunification.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

I think Red 6 has it about right. 

After WWII, the world, in short order, and for about 50 years, practised global wars, with one or another of the super powers backing small insurgency wars. This really is no different than one global war, with periodic, sporadic hot spots. It's about two powers fighting it out over the years, using representative armies to achieve it.


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

Right on, GAP. The wars on the periphery fought by proxy armies were an integral part of the bigger conflict. Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, Rhodesia, etc, etc, all achieved importance far above their actual worth in the global picture.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It's the difference between a hockey player slugging it out with one from the opposing team (this hapening several times throught the game), and a series of bench-clearing brawls.  The punches are just as hard, but the circumstances are quite different.


not quite. The various brush wars, espionage actions, propaganda, and terrorist acts, not to mention the economic efforts brought to bear, were simply campaigns in the War between Democracy and Communism. That was WW III, which sprang from WW II, which had sprung from WW I and the German's feelings towards their treatment in the decades following it. Just as WW IV, the war against militant Islam is a result of WW III, and the Soviet's support/promulgation of Arabic terrorism as a proxy in their attempts to subvert/overthrow Democracy, and the West's poorly thought-out campaign against it.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

The division seems to be a major event with a different focus. 
After WWII the major event that started to define WWIII was the Korean War, the major event that defined WW IV was the Trade Towers.


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

I think the events of the Cold War may someday be summed up as World War III, but the jury will have to remain out on that one. In regard to the current War on Terror being categorized as World War IV, it's too early to make that call. Whether it's a world war or not is debatable.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I think the events of the Cold War may someday be summed up as World War III, but the jury will have to remain out on that one. In regard to the current War on Terror being categorized as World War IV, it's too early to make that call. Whether it's a world war or not is debatable.



It might very well be define as The Religious Wars. The opposing forces are for the main part split along secular lines.


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It seems to me the true split is claoked in religion, but it's more to do with power, or lack thereof.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I think the events of the Cold War may someday be summed up as World War III, but the jury will have to remain out on that one. In regard to the current War on Terror being categorized as World War IV, it's too early to make that call. Whether it's a world war or not is debatable.



Well, we are dealing with it on more than four continents and sub-continents.  We are dealing with the WoT here at home, in Europe, in Africa, in Sri Lanka, in Indonesia, in Australia.....It is covering quite a bit of the globe.  How much further must we go, before we do classify it as a World War?

I would characterize it as being more of a "Western" versus "Archaic Middle Eastern" cultural war of philosophies, than outright "Religious".


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

I like your definition, George. It makes sense.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I think the events of the Cold War may someday be summed up as World War III, but the jury will have to remain out on that one. In regard to the current War on Terror being categorized as World War IV, it's too early to make that call. Whether it's a world war or not is debatable.



Summing up the events of the Cold War as "World War III" does not serve historians well; it's only being done by those in the present with a vested interest in obtaining more money for defence spending, soldiers included. In other words, it's political spin - the same spin that would use the term "World War" for the war on terror - which does not seem to be characterized by any kind of international co-ordination on the scale of either of the true world wars. Churchill sending tanks to a Communist murderer like Stalin spells a special kind of co-ordination much different than the POTUS begging impoverished militaries to join a "Coalition of the Willing."

There were plenty of small wars and even wars by proxy (Spanish Civil War, anyone?) in the 1920s and 1930s, lest we forget, and they are not defined as a "world war". 

Historians don't need to justify world danger to get money for themselves.


----------



## Red 6 (9 Jul 2006)

All well said, which is why it may have to be left to the future for the exact definitions of the large-scale conflicts of our own era.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> All well said, which is why it may have to be left to the future for the exact definitions of the large-scale conflicts of our own era.



The point made here about the Great War and the Second World War being defined as one conflict is apt, and some - perhaps many - historians are already transitioning towards that school of thought. I don't like it, but that's purely personal opinion. A soldier who fought in both World Wars might agree; a soldier born after 1919 who joined up to fight Hitler in 1939 might likely interpret it differently.

So who should "matter" more - those who are living it, or those who seek to define it years later? Whose objectives are "truer"?

Perhaps to answer that we have to answer the question: why define it at all?  For a historian, it is to provide common nomenclature, ease of understanding, and indirectly make it more likely to generate interest in specific topics (and even sell more books, from a purely capitalist standpoint).  For those living it, some of the same reasons - common understanding and generating interest for self-serving motives as well.  Which isn't to denigrate those with self-serving motives, as we all have them.  Historians live or die by selling books and soldiers live or die by convincing fat and happy civilians to give up health care, new roads and tax money to buy weaponry and pay wages for not just warfighters but the garrison-bound soldiers who outnumber them.

It comes down to integrating individual matters of opinion into widely held beliefs. I have an easier time believing that a conflict that included massive co-operation via Lend-Lease, Lease-Lend, regular conferences (and co-operation) of the leaders of the three largest powers on Earth (representing satellite nations probably including what - 60% of the world's population?) is fitting of the title "world war" than a series of what are in comparison conflicts of minor importance.  In 1944, every man, woman and child in Britain and Canada was dutifully collecting "saucepans for Spitfires", undergoing (as Farley Mowat put it) "the horrors of sugar rationing" and dedicated to a national program of conservation all intended for a war effort that was part of their daily lives.  Most Canadians today have no idea their nation is fighting a war, much less a world war. 

So if it does, as  I've just suggested, come down to integrating individual matters of opinion into widely held beliefs, I suspect the majority of opinion - at least in those countries where civilians really do get to be fat and happy - would be "war? what war?"

In other words - a world war involves more than just armies. A Canada in which a few thousands troops are in harm's way while the rest of the country doesn't even see them on the news is not fighting a world war. War is sacrifice, and from what I can tell, Canadians apart from those few thousands on the front line (and their families) are (knowingly) doing blessed little of that right now.

Edited to include the families of our soldiers.  Also to add: amajoor's definition of World War III and World War IV doesn't hold water, in my opinion, if the component of national participation is added. Even those workers building AVGPs for General Motors or at the Peerless Garment Company making bush caps and combat pants were not "sacrificing", as they feely elected to go into those jobs, and did so I am guessing more for the money and less for the feeling of participation in a national imperative than Rosie the Riveter or Canada's Bren Gun Girls felt. 

How many Canadians directly participated in the Cold War? Aside from a tiny Regular Force (who I think are to be respected as much as if not more than wartime vets, as there was little imperative for them to put on what in the 1970s was an unpopular uniform, not just because they were ugly but because of Vietnam and popular opinion) and Reserve Force augmentees (and even Army Cadets going over for REFORGER), how much "national effort" was there behind Canadian participation?

How much national effort went into even Vietnam (didn't the National Guard laugh off the whole war)? All these little wars being fought by the superpowers were done with professional standing armies, and the majority of people back home didn't have to lift a finger. The Soviet population suffered, but that was by design of the entire economy, not their individual desire to help the fighting men at the "front" of the so called WW III.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, we are dealing with it on more than four continents and sub-continents.  We are dealing with the WoT here at home, in Europe, in Africa, in Sri Lanka, in Indonesia, in Australia.....It is covering quite a bit of the globe.  How much further must we go, before we do classify it as a World War?
> I would characterize it as being more of a "Western" versus "Archaic Middle Eastern" cultural war of philosophies, than outright "Religious".



I would agree with you, if I thought for one minute, the media and the public gobbling the pap, would not condense it down to a headline. The media know quite well the motivations and history behind the Islamic revisionists little war, but that does not sell. It is the headline that sells, and NOTHING sell like sex and religion.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jul 2006)

Perhaps the defining feature of a “world war” level of conflict is not the degree and intensity of combat, but rather the scope of its cultural effect on the involved nations.

I do not think any would deny that most nations in the world were involved in the First and Second World Wars at a level reaching far deeper than simple provision of military forces.  Effects on national economies, rationing of supplies of food and other basic raw materials widely affecting life style, the focus of media coverage both in intensity and “spin”, and the degree of formative effect on national programs and objectives.  While certainly not the same in each nation in the same ways, it would appear that these Wars had a material and emotional effect on each household.

Similarly, in the “Cold War”, similar effects might be measured.  From the pervasive early fears of “the Bomb”, to schoolchildren learning to hide from the flash and blast, even to the widespread acceptance of MAD (Dr. Strangelove anyone?) and how one might as well ignore the possibility and go on living even as the celebrated Space Age paralleled equally effective refinements in WMD.

Does the WOT meet the same criteria, I believe it could be shown to be so.  But, it is early days; will it have the staying power of the Cold War?  That remains to be seen, and re-examined by historians of later decades.


"First World War"
"Second World War"
"The Cold War"
"War on Terror"

These have become defining terms tying together global events on grand scales.  Do we really need to be labeling the latter as “World Wars”?  Are we arguing semantics or interpretation of events?  What advantage comes with that designation?


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> These have become defining terms tying together global events on grand scales.  Do we really need to be labeling the latter as “World Wars”?  Are we arguing semantics or interpretation of events?  What advantage comes with that designation?



we arguing semantics


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> we arguing semantics



That's the point of the entire thread, GAP, starting with post one.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

I know


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Perhaps the defining feature of a “world war” level of conflict is not the degree and intensity of combat, but rather the scope of its cultural effect on the involved nations.
> 
> I do not think any would deny that most nations in the world were involved in the First and Second World Wars at a level reaching far deeper than simple provision of military forces.  Effects on national economies, rationing of supplies of food and other basic raw materials widely affecting life style, the focus of media coverage both in intensity and “spin”, and the degree of formative effect on national programs and objectives.  While certainly not the same in each nation in the same ways, it would appear that these Wars had a material and emotional effect on each household.
> 
> Similarly, in the “Cold War”, similar effects might be measured.  From the pervasive early fears of “the Bomb”, to schoolchildren learning to hide from the flash and blast, even to the widespread acceptance of MAD (Dr. Strangelove anyone?) and how one might as well ignore the possibility and go on living even as the celebrated Space Age paralleled equally effective refinements in WMD.



I see you agree with me.  As for the "Cold War", traditionally, that term was used because it referred to a conflict in which there was no actual fighting directly between the major players. I think it is useful to use that terminology rather than the deceptive "World War III", which in a_majoor's examples and subsequent conversation appears to refer to those proxy wars by large standing armies that the populations were largely ambivalent towards and had to sacrifice little energy or even thought to if they didn't want to.



> Does the WOT meet the same criteria, I believe it could be shown to be so.



Not in Canada, luckily enough - not yet.



> These have become defining terms tying together global events on grand scales.  Do we really need to be labeling the latter as “World Wars”?  Are we arguing semantics or interpretation of events?  What advantage comes with that designation?



Advantage? See my post on the last page. For a defence lobbyist or a soldier in need of new kit, there are certainly perceived advantages. It's up to whether or not the people with the money accept those designations, which would be the determining factor in how advantageous those designations actually became.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Summing up the events of the Cold War as "World War III" does not serve historians well; it's only being done by those in the present with a vested interest in obtaining more money for defence spending, soldiers included. In other words, it's political spin - the same spin that would use the term "World War" for the war on terror - which does not seem to be characterized by any kind of international co-ordination on the scale of either of the true world wars.



Fully agreed.

I would also make the point that an awful lot of people spent the Cold War worried that "World War 3" might break out -- and breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Soviet Union collapsed without this having happened.  Had there been a World War 3, the conventional wisdom of the time had it that we would all be glowing in the dark by now.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I would also make the point that an awful lot of people spent the Cold War worried that "World War 3" might break out


only those who weren't following events beyond their own personal interests. Others were fully aware that we were engaged in a war of ideologies, with sporadic campaigns being fought across the globe by the soldiers of the two primary Blocs, as well as by proxies, from 1945 until well into the 1990's. Students of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu could (and did) easily recognize that the world was at war.

Just as most of the campaigns in all the theatres of WW II were composed of weeks and months of waiting, interspersed with days of fierce fighting, while behind the scenes was a flurry of activity in Intelligence gathering, propaganda, economic pressure, political maneuvering, and guerilla warfare, so the decades following WW II were composed of the conventional armies mostly training and waiting, while behind the scenes were Intelligence operatives, SpecOps pers, politicians, and others engaged in Intelligence gathering, propaganda, economic pressure, political maneuvering, and guerilla warfare. 

The campaigns were Vietnam, Korea, Angola, Rhodesia, Mozambique, El Salvador, Nicaruagua, the Phillipines, Oman, Yemen, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, the streets of Europe, Armenia, Czechoslovakia, Peru, Cuba, Colombia, Afghanistan, etc. Some we won, some we lost. But the war, the war we won. Which brought us into the next World War, and we'll win it, too.


----------



## calgarytanks (10 Jul 2006)

pradacowboy said:
			
		

> only those who weren't following events beyond their own personal interests. Others were fully aware that we were engaged in a war of ideologies, with sporadic campaigns being fought across the globe by the soldiers of the two primary Blocs, as well as by proxies, from 1945 until well into the 1990's. Students of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu could (and did) easily recognize that the world was at war.
> 
> Just as most of the campaigns in all the theatres of WW II were composed of weeks and months of waiting, interspersed with days of fierce fighting, while behind the scenes was a flurry of activity in Intelligence gathering, propaganda, economic pressure, political maneuvering, and guerilla warfare, so the decades following WW II were composed of the conventional armies mostly training and waiting, while behind the scenes were Intelligence operatives, SpecOps pers, politicians, and others engaged in Intelligence gathering, propaganda, economic pressure, political maneuvering, and guerilla warfare.
> 
> The campaigns were Vietnam, Korea, Angola, Rhodesia, Mozambique, El Salvador, Nicaruagua, the Phillipines, Oman, Yemen, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, the streets of Europe, Armenia, Czechoslovakia, Peru, Cuba, Colombia, Afghanistan, etc. Some we won, some we lost. But the war, the war we won. Which brought us into the next World War, and we'll win it, too.



 you have missed the point entirely - civilian populations were not invilve d in these campaigns to any degree - in the world wars they certanily were.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jul 2006)

calgarytanks said:
			
		

> you have missed the point entirely - civilian populations were not invilve d in these campaigns to any degree - in the world wars they certanily were.



What?

Civilian populations were involved in these campaigns to the same extent that they have been in every conflict.  If you are trying to tell us that these conflicts occurred, and the civilian populations just sat in their homes safe and sound, carrying on normal day to day business, then you have slept through the past half century of conflict. 

Masses fled the conflicts in Korea.  Masses fled the conflicts in Indo China.  Masses fled the wars in Angola.  Masses fled the conflict in Rhodesia, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea......

Where have you been hiding?


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

civilan populations were heavily involved in these campaigns. How many civilians died in Vietnam? In Rhodesia? In Korea? In Angola? In Mozambique? In El Salvador? In Nicaruagua? In the Phillipines? In Oman? In Yemen? In Thailand? In Laos? In Cambodia? In Papua New Guinea? In the cities of Europe? 
In Armenia? In Czechoslovakia? In Peru? In Cuba? In Colombia? In Afghanistan? In Honduras? In Guatemala? In Belize? In the Congo? In South Africa? In Tibet? 

The very nature of the enemy we fought for 5 decades was such that the civilian population was the TARGET. The Viet Cong, the ANC, the conventional Soviet Forces, the Sandanistas, the Khmere Rouge, the various terrorist organizations sponsored by the Soviets, these and their ilk deliberately killed and terrorized the civilian populations in order to carry out their agenda.


----------



## enfield (10 Jul 2006)

I have to disagree with the notion of the Cold War and the WoT as a "world war" - although we need to define "world war" first.

Merriam Webster gives a general (and largely unhelpful) definition as:
_a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world;_ especially capitalized both Ws : either of two such wars of the first half of The 20th century (italics added)

The Cold War failed to completely engage the militaries and populations of the world in the scale or manner that WW1 and WW2 did, just as the WoT does not engage the majority of citizens today. 

While undoubtedly every conflict between 1945 and 1989 become a Communism/Democracy battleground in the eyes of the Developed West, the causes/roots/outcomes were often outside of our Grand Struggle. The fall of colonialism and the rise of previously colonized peoples and nationalist movements were the largest factor in the post-1945 conflicts, and many had started before the Cold War. Often these struggles, in the end, came to be defined on democracy-communism terms and identifications, but the ideology at the root of these struggles had more to do with race, nationalism, independence, oppression and freedom. To attempt to tie the myriad of wars, and the countless ideologies and causes behind them, into one united war is a stretch. 

Were the wars on Southern Africa about communism vs capitalism, or about racism, nationalism, tribalism, and economics? Was the war in Korea tied to a grand communism master plan, or the militaristic expansionism of a small state rooted in regional politics? Were the French in Algeria and Indo China fighting for democracy or for French power and nationalism? Israel and its neighbours were at war in 1948 for reasons completely outside the Cold War, and today the conflict continues after the Cold War is gone.

Even the main 'combatants' were only partially committed to the 'war'. Western Europe and Canada did not maintain itself at a high state of national readiness - certainly not compared to WW1/2 standards, or states like Israel or Rhodesia. The economies and populations of the West, outside the US at least, were not dedicated to a grand struggle against communism. A specialized military, industrial, political and academic group was highly focused on the struggle, and used considerable resources, but nowhere near the standards of mobilization. 

There was certainly a massive military, economic and cultural struggle between 1945 and 1989 between major global power blocs that effected the entire world. This conflict did, often, take a direct military turn through proxy wars, and at times the two sides clashed very directly. However, this fails to qualify as world war. It was long-standing competition between two competing powers, such as has occurred many times throughout history. 

A World War _must_ imply Total War. The Cold War was not Total War, although it could have very quickoy become one. The War on Terror is certainly not Total War. 
To define a "world war" as simply a war that takes place across the world is self-defeating since in our modern world (and probably since Europe began to span the globe) everything is global - industry, migration, recreation, entertainment, and war.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

Enfield said:
			
		

> The Cold War failed to completely engage the militaries and populations of the world in the scale or manner that WW1 and WW2 did, just as the WoT does not engage the majority of citizens today.


yes, it did, actually. The armies of both parties were preparing for the conventional battles, engaging in small scale battles (if you can call a war spanning only one nation 'small'), and supporting proxy forces. And this was over decades. Just as in both previous World Wars thre were periods of little to no combat, but there was agreat deal of moving forces around and training them. How long were troops based in England before they launched into Normandy, again?



> While undoubtedly every conflict between 1945 and 1989 become a Communism/Democracy battleground in the eyes of the Developed West, the causes/roots/outcomes were often outside of our Grand Struggle.


 but, those causes were quickly embraced/subverted by one side or the other, just as the Arab's hatred of the Jews were subverted by the Nazis, or the Balkan Muslims were absorbed into the SS, or the Communists of South-East Asia were supported by the Allies against the Japanese.



> A specialized military, industrial, political and academic group was highly focused on the struggle, and used considerable resources, but nowhere near the standards of mobilization.


 but, that select group employed, either openly or covertly, the entire economic/political/military resources of both sides.



> However, this fails to qualify as world war. It was long-standing competition between two competing powers, such as has occurred many times throughout history.


 all war is nothing more than the competition of two or more powers. That's ALL it is!



> A World War _must_ imply Total War. The Cold War was not Total War, although it could have very quickoy become one


. The entire world was affected by the actions of two sides, and their actions spanned the globe for 50 years. Both sides brought their entire socio-economic pressure to bear on the other, and the other's proxies. Millions died. The world lived in fear of instant destruction. Sounds pretty 'total' to me.



> The War on Terror is certainly not Total War.


 it certainly is. For the same reasons as above.



> To define a "world war" as simply a war that takes place across the world is self-defeating since in our modern world (and probably since Europe began to span the globe) everything is global - industry, migration, recreation, entertainment, and war.


 which simply goes to illustrate that the Cold War, and the current one are World Wars, since they involve/impact every facet of the lives of the over-whelming majority of the world population. Which shows that there has been no insult in equating the sacrifices of the soldiers who fought/are fighting these wars, to those made by the soldiers who fought in the Great War, and the Deuce. 

For those who still doubt, go talk to a WW II veteran. I've yet to meet one who didn't say the same thing.


----------



## warrickdll (10 Jul 2006)

I am in agreement with those who view the Cold War as the accepted title covering the Communist vs. Non-Communist arms build up and proxy conflicts (occurring over an extended period of time)- I see no value in trying to obtain credibility for changing the title to WW3.

For those who differ, I think you need to view it from the World War templates:

The First World War was preceded by a period of massive standing forces expansion and the occurrence of regional and proxy conflicts (studied as distinct from the actual World War).

The Second World War was preceded by a period of massive standing forces expansion and the occurrence of regional and proxy conflicts (studied as distinct from the actual World War).

If war had broken out between NATO and the USSR it would have been historically noted that WW3 was preceded by an extended period of massive standing forces expansion and the occurrence of regional and proxy conflicts (colloquially referred to as the Cold War and studied as distinct from the actual World War).

The corollary being that if war had not broken out between the Allies and Germany (and later Japan), the preceding buildup of standing forces and the occurrence of regional and proxy conflicts would not later be referred to as WW2. 

In short, the Cold War more closely resembles an extended version of what preceded both World Wars, but not the actual World Wars themselves.

As for the War on Terror (outside of the war in Iraq) it more closely resembles much earlier global efforts to end piracy and slavery.




The actual semantics have no precise meaning and there is no real threshold between what is and isn't a World War. Its not like World War is an SI unit of measure: (xWar + yWar = 1WW) or (1WW/1000 = 1mWW). 

Even if there were another global conflict between the major powers, it doesn't mean people will feel compelled to refer to it as WW3 (just as people don't feel overly compelled to revise previous global conflicts as World Wars).


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> In short, the Cold War more closely resembles an extended version of what preceded both World Wars, but not the actual World Wars themselves.


now, this makes sense!
(I was going to go through point by point and agree/dispute, but the whole damn thing makes a lot of sense, actually. I don't fully agree, but it's too well-thought and worded to nitpick.)


----------



## calgarytanks (10 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> civilan populations were heavily involved in these campaigns. How many civilians died in Vietnam?



U.s. civilians?  few to zero. Have you read much about that war?



> In Korea?



canadian or U.S. civilians? Few to zero....again, have you read much about that war?  Not trying to c ut you down, but I really think you are not understanding the entirre argument..



> The very nature of the enemy we fought for 5 decades was such that the civilian population was the TARGET.



a potential target. never panned out...I know, I trained to fight them, same as many here.



> The Viet Cong, the ANC, the conventional Soviet Forces, the Sandanistas, the Khmere Rouge, the various terrorist organizations sponsored by the Soviets, these and their ilk deliberately killed and terrorized the civilian populations in order to carry out their agenda.



and your mom and dad in saskatchewan or manitoba were effected how, exactly? What did they give up in order to bring the fight to them?

Like I said, you don't seem to be thinking beyond what armies have done.



> The Cold War failed to completely engage the militaries and populations of the world in the scale or manner that WW1 and WW2 did, just as the WoT does not engage the majority of citizens today.
> 
> yes, it did, actually. The armies of both parties were preparing for the conventional battles, engaging in small scale battles (if you can call a war spanning only one nation 'small'), and supporting proxy forces. And this was over decades. Just as in both previous World Wars thre were periods of little to no combat, but there was agreat deal of moving forces around and training them. How long were troops based in England before they launched into Normandy, again?



again, you talk about the armies but show no under-standing of what the civie population was doing back home


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jul 2006)

calgarytanks said:
			
		

> U.s. civilians?  few to zero. Have you read much about that war?


No change from WW I and WW II.  Your point is?


			
				calgarytanks said:
			
		

> canadian or U.S. civilians? Few to zero....again, have you read much about that war?  Not trying to c ut you down, but I really think you are not understanding the entirre argument..


Again, is there any major difference here from WW I and WW II ?

Your argument doesn't hold up much.


----------



## nowhere_man (10 Jul 2006)

I think a good marker would be WW1 about 8 and a half million deaths, World war 2 56 million. Now I'm not really sure how one would go about to even find out the deaths from the Cold war from the major powers or there trickle down effect (USA, Russia and Warsaw and NATO pacts) But in Vietnam the US lost about 58,000 men. In Afghanistan Russia lost 15,000 troops. Now not getting into the other conflicts (like Panama or the Czech Republic)  but i don't think that 73,000 casualties can compare to 8.5 and 56 million that were lost in the World Wars.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Jul 2006)

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> I think a good marker would be WW1 about 8 and a half million deaths, World war 2 56 million. Now I'm not really sure how one would go about to even find out the deaths from the Cold war from the major powers or there trickle down effect (USA, Russia and Warsaw and NATO pacts) But in Vietnam the US lost about 58,000 men. In Afghanistan Russia lost 15,000 troops. Now not getting into the other conflicts (like Panama or the Czech Republic)  but i don't think that 73,000 casualties can compare to 8.5 and 56 million that were lost in the World Wars.



After reading the 45 preceding posts (you did do that, didn't you?), you can only come up with numbers of deaths an a measure of scale for "World War"?

So, how many, exactly does it take to make a world war?


----------



## nowhere_man (10 Jul 2006)

Yes i did read the other posts just so you know.
And i dont think think that anyone is going to relly come to an agreement of what defines a world war.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Jul 2006)

Perhaps not, but you seemed pretty sure of that point about numbers of deaths defining the World Wars.  For events since 1945, see:

*Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century*

http://129.132.36.145/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=PublishingHouse&fileid=59374B67-177C-2202-693C-1651BC102753&lng=en

*Table 2
Deaths in Wars and Conflicts Since the End of World War II: 1945 to 2000*



> Total ... approximately 40,968,000, rounded to 41 million




Spend some time reading and researching, you may find that the reason why that definition is difficult to capture is that there are many more variables than just death statistics involved.


----------



## nowhere_man (10 Jul 2006)

Thank you for that, I see how my idea was flawed beacuse by the way of thinking in terms of casualties the Cold war would be between the two world wars (closer to the Second). But i still dont think that the Cold war and WOT can be defined as a world war. but thats just my view


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No change from WW I and WW II.  Your point is?Again, is there any major difference here from WW I and WW II ?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold up much.



Not sure where pc and ct are going with this, but it seems tangential.  Michael O'Leary posted thoughts very similar to mine, perhaps all parties concerned might want to review them. At risk of repeating myself, national mobilization is measured in more than just fatalities. If anyone thinks, for example, Vietnam was a US national effort, they would need to explain how that could be while the reserves were never mobilized. (Granted the US did have the draft, but the majority of soldiers to serve in Vietnam were volunteers, none of which is really an accurate measure of national involvement). The actions of the standing, professional armies of the world lumped together do not make a "world war", and Neil McKay et al have posted other good reasons too. It's all laid out in the thread, there shouldn't be a need to go over it again.  Comparing the WoT to a "world effort" is even more fatuous - an imperfect but workable litmus test might be to ask the average Canadian what they are doing to win the war.  If the majority of respondents have to be reminded that they are, in fact, in a country at war, I suspect that test has been failed.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

calgarytanks said:
			
		

> U.s. civilians?  few to zero. Have you read much about that war?
> 
> canadian or U.S. civilians? Few to zero....again, have you read much about that war?  Not trying to c ut you down, but I really think you are not understanding the entirre argument..
> 
> ...


sorry, I guess I'm not so narrow-minded that I only consider North Americans as civilians, or that only their lives are worth anything. WHen I read "civilian" I tend to think of whomever the non-military people aer living in the nation being affected by the war tearing their country apart. Maybe you aren't grasping the full argument. 

Read this thread again, with a broader perspective. Hopefully, you'll see it more clearly.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Civilian populations were involved in these campaigns to the same extent that they have been in every conflict.  If you are trying to tell us that these conflicts occurred, and the civilian populations just sat in their homes safe and sound, carrying on normal day to day business, then you have slept through the past half century of conflict.



Halifax in 1943, Halifax in 1983 -- the same, or different?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Halifax in 1943, Halifax in 1983 -- the same, or different?



Exactly.  The scale of the national effort in 1943 as opposed to 2006 has nothing to do with casualties. Every Canadian in 1943 was putting money into war bonds, collecting scrap, enduring rationing - rubber, gasoline, sugar - the war touched every single Canadian alive and effected their daily lives.

How many Americans missed a meal during Vietnam, and how many Canadians even realize what the conflict in Afghanistan is about?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> sorry, I guess I'm not so narrow-minded that I only consider North Americans as civilians, or that only their lives are worth anything. WHen I read "civilian" I tend to think of whomever the non-military people aer living in the nation being affected by the war tearing their country apart. Maybe you aren't grasping the full argument.
> 
> Read this thread again, with a broader perspective. Hopefully, you'll see it more clearly.



You're the one not "getting" it paracowboy.  If your populace is not sacrificing anything, indeed, doesn't even realize there is a war on, then it isn't a national effort. I suggest you take your own advice, use some of that broad-thinking you are claiming to have, and go back over Michael O'Leary's comments, or Neill McKay's, or my own.  Sending 3,000 soldiers to Afghanistan does not mean you are fighting a world war.  A nation of 200+ million sending 0.5 million soldiers (only 50,000 of whom were combat arms troops) to Vietnam does not mean you are fighting a world war, especially if your reserves are never mobilized.

No national effort = no "world war".  No one is doubting that war by proxy was carried out on a wide scale, it just didn't involve very many people in most of the 1st world - Europe, USSR, North America, China.  Soldiers from those regions fought in small numbers for limited objectives with few people "back home" really doing anything to assist them.

A comparison to the Second World War and the economic changes it wrought, or the First World War and the gigantic social changes that came about as a direct result, should make the whole notion of the Cold War as "Third World War" a non-starter.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (11 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You're the one not "getting" it paracowboy.





			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No national effort = no "world war".





			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> A comparison to the Second World War and the economic changes it wrought, or the First World War and the gigantic social changes that came about as a direct result, should make the whole notion of the Cold War as "Third World War" a non-starter.



That`s an excellent 1973 style post - but war is war at any time under any levels. 

A few long look observations

In summer 1760 only 6,000 Brit regulars were on the ground at the end of the French Garrison in Montreal. Add 12,000 callouts from the New England States - popular retrospection calls it a war.

As for the Cold War - remember we had 120 plus thousand troops that were progressively whittled down? Big bases and infrastructure? Nukes? I suggest that was on the Cabinet table for the better part of a decade. Look for 1948 - 1978 --------- yes 30 years or were the US license plates in Comox just lots of tourists up when my Old and Bold 11 Svc Bn was on driver trg up there? 

As for the 1989 period onwards - did you miss the numbers of reg force troops deployed away?

One of more interesting commentators has drawn the line in the sand - Lew Mackenzie - don`t send non war trained soldiers to a conflict where the other side will use any means.

We were at war in Haiti - see Max Boots "Savage Wars of Peace" He says "It’s a small war, a term used during the twentieth century to describe encounters between small numbers of Western soldiers and irregular forces in what is now called the Third World. When we think of war most of us think of the Civil War or World Wars I and II—conflicts fought by millions of citizen soldiers supported by the total mobilization of the American home front. By contrast, U.S. involvement in places like Kosovo, Bosnia, or Afghanistan barely qualifies as a war in the popular imagination. Yet, as I discovered during the course of researching my book, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, such “small wars”—fought by a small number of professional U.S. soldiers—are much more typical of American history than are the handful of “total” wars that receive most of the public attention." See http://www.hooverdigest.org/023/boot.html

Small War`s persist because most countrys want to right a wrong or slight. Gone for Korean Food lately? Please do - the KimChi is excellent - while you`re there read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2261782,00.html

For US - insert Canada and its the same thing. Conflict on a scale from rock throwing to calling in Apache`s when some dirtbag wounds us all as we are with the recent loss of Cpl Boneca, is war in its purest sense.

The Webster dictionary http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/war ----- war - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy

Your thinking other`s comments are less worthy will naturally keep you embroiled in a constant war of words.

Diplomacy which will get you invited to far more interesting barbecues than you attend at present.


----------



## Red 6 (11 Jul 2006)

I have a personal story to add to this thread. It isn't specifically about the World Wars, but it's mine. When I got home from Desert Storm in 91 I got orders to go to recruiting duty in Oceanside, CA. One afternoon, I went to a barber shop in the Carlsbad mall in class B's. I was waiting to get my hair cut and this older woman comes in and sits down to wait for her husband, who was getting his hair cut. She looked at my ribbons and asked if I'd been in DS. I replied that I was there and she scoffed and said, "Well, that wasn't a _real_ war. My husband was in the Marines for 25 years and served in Korea and Vietnam. Those were wars." 

I think it makes perfect sense that the Cold War was a separate conflict all its own. The lightbulb went on for me when I read a post where it described us as all waiting for World War III to break out. I thought, "AHA!" that's it. There is absolutely no national effort in this war we're currently involved in. It's seems to be somewhat obscene to be in a shooting war and the people at home, unless they're associated with the military, go about their lives as if nothing is going on. What mystifies me is how we (the US) can be engaged in force reductions and realignments while our service emmbers are dying. 

If you were in it and you got shot at, it's probably a war to you whatever the talking heads call it. It only takes one mortar barrage to let you know you're in combat.


----------



## enfield (11 Jul 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> It's seems to be somewhat obscene to be in a shooting war and the people at home, unless they're associated with the military, go about their lives as if nothing is going on.



Its hardly new - civilian indifference is probably the rule rather than the exception. Unless its a truly titanic struggle, it can be ignored. The wars of colonialism/imperialism (whether its the US in the Wild West, Britain in Africa, France in SE Asia, or even Canada in South Africa) were fought by professional armies far from home. The people back home had little interest, and even less of a real role, in the wars. The Korean War was arguably the same. Wars that involve the populace - US Civil War, WW1, WW2 are three big examples - are rare. Perhaps the only reason we see the level of popular involvement and concern we do in A'stan or Iraq is due to the modern mass media. At the end of the day, and until something goes wrong, the citizens of Rome don't care what the legionaries are doing at the frontier. 



			
				Red 6 said:
			
		

> If you were in it and you got shot at, it's probably a war to you whatever the talking heads call it. It only takes one mortar barrage to let you know you're in combat.


Absolutely. 

To the main topic; we don't need  the title "world war" to vindicate or justify the massive effort put forth in the Cold War or WoT. As time goes on,  and socio-economic-political themes are seen through different lenses, perceptions of each conflict will change. Likely WW1 and 2 will soon be seen as one single struggle, and maybe the Cold War will be re-interpreted as a long low-intensity war. At the end of the day, no matter what historians define it as, a war is a war for those involved - military or civilian.


----------

