For over 15 years, a multi-national coalition of forces…primarily, the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and others…have been battling insurgents on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan…the Taliban, Ba’athists, Al-Qaeda, ISIS.
A list of belligerents in both wars:
MY definition of “world war” is multiple nations around the world ally to battle on multiple fronts around the world against an axis of multiple forces…from around the world.
With Coalition Forces fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, apparently, Syria, are we in WWIII?
In WW1 and WW2 a huge part of each nations financial capital and human capital went to the war effort. I think the US & Britain were spending 40% of GDP on military and in the US 12% of people were in the armed forces.
It is nothing like that now, so I’d say no. I don’t know what the correct definition of world war is, but I’d assume it means a war where most/all powerful nations are not only at war, but are devoting a huge % of their human and financial capital to the all out war effort. That isn’t happening.
That’s fine to have your personal random beliefs, but your belief is just as poorly grounded as believing you’re in ww3 because of a legal dispute with your neighbor.
The overwhelming majority of the educated adults in the world agree your use of the terminology is wrong. Since language is ultimately based on collective belief (the only reason “red” refers to light of a specific frequency around 680 nm is because the majority agree it does), you’re objectively wrong.
The Korean War was definitely a World War, because it was still a continuation of World War II. And of course, it technically never ended. So we’re still in World War II.
I don’t know about that. NK invaded the SK in 1950, well after the end of WWII. Yes, Korea was divided at the end of WWII, but it was divided in the same way Germany was. If we’re going that route, then we’d say WWII was a continuation of WWI, since the treaty that ended the latter can be blamed for what caused the former.
All throughout history we have situations where War A led to War B, but we don’t say: Well, it was all just one big war anyway.
Let’s see, one side (Germany, Japan, Italy) was not involved in the Korean War, North and South Korea had no role in WW II, and the US/UN and China were allies in WW II.
Do you consider the Cold War a continuation of WW II? Vietnam?
weird thread. ‘world war’ is a term of art, or of historians. The first name for the 14-18 war has been the Great War. In Russia the term for WW2 is the Great Patriotic Wat, etc around the globe. Would people in the USA still refer to 42-45 as a world war if Pearl Harbour never happened - Canada was hugely involved from 1939/40 as were the Caribbean islands.
35 countries took part in Desert Storm. What was that WW36?
If we go by your definition we would be on World War XXVII or some such. And that’s only if we restrict ourselves to the modern era. If we go back to the Panic Wars we’re going to have to break out the Cs and Ls.
Korea definitely had a role in World War II, in the sense that it was very brutally occupied by Japan; Koreans were also drafted into military service for Japan, and I was astonished to just read on Wikipedia that “Korea produced seven generals and numerous field grade officers (Colonels, Lieutenants and majors) during 35 years of colonial governance by Japan”.
Korea was also involved in the Vietnam War, something that the majority of people don’t know. America had a number of allies directly involved in that war, including Thailand, the Philippines, Brazil, and South Korea. The South Koreans were notoriously vicious combatants; I’ve read that they were even feared by the American troops there despite being on our side.
If you make up your own definition, then you can decide anything you want is a world war. That doesn’t mean anyone else will agree with it.
The two World Wars involved major world powers in direct conflict with other major world powers of the time. While major world powers may be involved on one side of these conflicts, there are no major world powers involved on the other side. The opposing side consists of minor powers and non-governmental forces. Proxy wars between major powers as were common during the Cold War, where the major powers themselves are not directly fighting each other, also don’t make a conflict a world war.
And the scale is trivial compared to the World Wars. From your links, total deaths of combatants (both sides) in the Iraq War are about 65,000, and for Afghanistan up to about 110,000. Contrast this with military deaths in WWI of about 10 million and WWII of 21-25 million (plus many tens of millions more in civilian deaths).
Weren’t there also many small scale squabbles prior to WW1 and in the post Great War period as well? Spanish American war, countless skirmishes between the natives and occupying forces for the British Empire, that kind of thing?
Yes. For that matter, there had been a number of previous conflicts involving coalitions of major powers on multiple continents. The War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713) is sometimes considered the first world war of modern times, but from the early 1500s on there were low-level (and sometimes higher level) conflicts between the major colonial powers on a global scale.
Just a quibble. Canada hasn’t been involved in Gulf War II and hasn’t had any troops there. We weren’t part of the “coalition of the willing.”
We have been involved in Afghanistan since 2002.
The difference is that Afghanistan sheltered the group which attacked the US in 2001, which triggered the collective security provision of NATO, and Canada aided its NATO partner, the US.
Iraq never attacked the US (other way around). The NATO guarantee didn’t apply and Canada did not participate in the US-led attack on Iraq.
Canada has had combat troops in Iraq since 2014 and sent warships to support American security operations in the Gulf since 2003 so I have no idea why you’re bringing this up at all.