When was "World War 2" First Used?

[samclem]

but I don’t think anyone called it “WW I” until Time in 1939.

[Quercus]

@Zeldar

I’ll give you the gas and artillery part, but the Gatling gun was in use in the Civil War.

Maybe a Gatling gun was indeed actually fired in a real battle at some point in the Civil War, but it certainly didn’t have any significant military significance during the war. As opposed to machine guns in WWI, which pretty much defined how it was fought.

[iano]

I can’t believe the half-assed guessing going on. Wikipedia:

@Wikipedia

The term “Second World War” was also coined in the 1920s. In 1928, US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg advocated his treaty “for the renunciation of war” (known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) as being a “practical guarantee against a second world war”. The term came into widespread use as soon as the war began in 1939.

:smack:

It’s not something I can look up now, but I’ve certainly read of people looking at the Great War in the years after it and satirically naming it the First World War. It wasn’t much, I don’t think.

[Zeldar]

@Quercus

Maybe a Gatling gun was indeed actually fired in a real battle at some point in the Civil War, but it certainly didn’t have any significant military significance during the war. As opposed to machine guns in WWI, which pretty much defined how it was fought.

I give up. The Gatling gun had no significance. As I said to begin with, the American Civil War was dubbed (at least in the book I was reading today) as “the first modern war.” That was my main point. That I embellished that comment with the thing about little happening in warfare between then and WWI was a mistake I regret.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Giles

The Seven Years’ War was fought between European powers, with the fighting going on in Europe and North America. That means it asn’t as global at the war fought between 1914 and 1919, which included fighting in the Middle East and participation by a fairly widespread number of countries. One outcome was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, another was the two 1917 revolutions in Russia, and a third was the redistribution of Germany’s colonies in Africa and Oceania. So it was considerably more global than the Seven Years’ War.

Your information is inaccurate. The Seven Years War was also fought in India, the Philippines, Africa, and the Caribbean. So it was quite global.

On the other hand, your concept is correct, in that, while England and France (and to a lesser extent Spain and Portugal) ended up duking it out around the world, non-European powers weren’t drawn into the war like they were in WWI. It should be pointed out, for completeness’ sake, that the only non-European/North American power pulled into WWI (discounting the members of the British Commonwealth, who in the mid-1800’s were still part of the UK) was Japan. So WWI wasn’t THAT much more widespread than the SYW (the Middle East was the main addition to the mix).

[samclem]

@iano

I can’t believe the half-assed guessing going on. Wikipedia:

The term “Second World War” was also coined in the 1920s. In 1928, US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg advocated his treaty “for the renunciation of war” (known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) as being a “practical guarantee against a second world war”. The term came into widespread use as soon as the war began in 1939.

It’s not something I can look up now, but I’ve certainly read of people looking at the Great War in the years after it and satirically naming it the First World War. It wasn’t much, I don’t think.

Here’s what you aren’t understanding.

The term “second world war” or “ww II” , used to describe the actual Second World War(WW II), didn’t come into being until 1939. Period.

The term “World War I” didn’t come into being to describe the actual war that took place from 1914-1918, until 1939.

[KarlGauss]

I am holding in my hand a copy of the remarkable “Berlin Diary” by William L. Shirer. Here is part of the entry for September 1, 1939:

Tomorrow, Britain and France will probably come in and you have your second World War.

(emphasis added).

Surely this must be the first use of the phrase after hostilities had begun.

[Pushkin]

Somewhat controversial historian Niall Ferguson had it that WWI started with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904 was the start to WWI proper in his TV series “War of the World.”

[Walloon]

Some earlier Time magazine uses of “Second World War” and “World War II”:

The only reason that so much of the world’s hard-earned wealth is poured down an uneconomic rathole is that men expect and fear the coming of a Second World War. . . . In World War II it is possible that even nations who do not take sides may play a vital military part, for they may be invaded.

“War Machines,” June 12, 1939

The longest name on the British Navy list is that of Admiral the Hon. Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. . . . Last week, now one of Britain’s wisest naval strategists, he set out for Moscow again—in a desperate effort to stave off World War II.

“Heather and Steel,” Aug. 14, 1939.

In World War II, if it comes, some nations may avoid fighting. But they will certainly not go untouched.

“The Neutrals,” Aug. 14, 1939

Geography has always decided where wars are fought and how they are fought. World War I was no exception. World War II is not likely to be—even though airplanes add to the geography of war a new three dimensional veneer.

“The Geography of Battle,” Aug. 28, 1939

At 1919’s export peak the U. S. exported 16% of much less production than World War II would stimulate. If war comes, and the U. S. is in it, exports are not likely to take this much of production.

“Come War, Come Peace,” Sept. 4, 1939 (published eight days before cover date)

[Walloon]

And an earlier use of “World War I”:

Quality counts as much as or more than quantity. In World War I, for example, command of the air changed hands several times, and the command changed not only when numbers varied but when one side introduced a superior new plane which could outfight the opposing machines.

“War Machines,” June 12, 1939

[samclem]

I’ll leave it to you to contact the OED.

It would appear that Time perhaps still coined the expressions, or perhaps they merely popularized it.

[dtilque]

It should be noted that the OED does have a cite for “World War No. 2” from 1919. It was a heading in the Manchester Guardian.

Now what’s the earliest use of Word War III? The OED doesn’t have anything before 1959, except for a 1945 citation for “world-war no. 3” in a letter not published until 1969. I’d be surprised if either were the earliest. Was Time ahead of its time on that one, too?

[DSYoungEsq]

@samclem

I’ll leave it to you to contact the OED.

It would appear that Time perhaps still coined the expressions, or perhaps they merely popularized it.

With respect, I believe you have taken an excessively narrow view of the question in the OP.

Certainly, use of the terms Second World War or WWII (which are, frankly, interchageable) to denote the war many feel was inevitable, and which, did, infact break out on 9/1/39, would be considered usages of the terms to refer to that war. You didn’t need the actual beginning of hostilities, for example, to see the phrase Second Gulf War get used to describe the invasion of Iraq that did, inevitably, take place in 2003.

Similarly, while the term WWI or World War I may not have occurred before a given date, the use of the term First World War would certainly indicate that the so-called Great War was thought of as the first war of its type, though not necessarily with the implication a second one had to follow.

[JohnM]

@RickJay

Well, that seems obvious, since the actual WWI started in July of 1914.

D’oh! I was so involved in making my (well actually, Winston’s, as noted up thread) point about the Seven Years’ War that I made a stupid mistake on the dates for WWI. I could of course claim that I was using the year that the U.S. entered the war, but that would be disingenuous.

[DSYoungEsq]

@JohnM

D’oh! I was so involved in making my (well actually, Winston’s, as noted up thread) point about the Seven Years’ War that I made a stupid mistake on the dates for WWI. I could of course claim that I was using the year that the U.S. entered the war, but that would be disingenuous.

Hehehe, no war actually starts until we’ve been dragged into it. :eek:

[gregzsidisin]

Thank you all so much for your responses, and a really interesting thread. I guess it should have been obvious that there was such a build-up in tension before the conflict that the phrase would inevitably have surfaced by the start of hostilities.

Now I’m running off to read up on the Seven Years’ War…

Cheers,
Greg

[minnlector]

Re “The First World War” Simon&Schuster, 1933. I can verify that posting since I own that book. I’ve won a few bets with it. Obviously, the term as it was being used prior to Sept, '39 was simply an expression describing the scope of the conflict, rather than some sort of clairvoyance.

[Uncertain]

@JohnM

If less than a generation later France and England had re-fought the same conflict then some London wag may have started the “World War” designation then, and we would have spent the Cold War worrying about WWV.

Why would anybody worry about WWV?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@minnlector

Re “The First World War” Simon&Schuster, 1933. I can verify that posting since I own that book. I’ve won a few bets with it. Obviously, the term as it was being used prior to Sept, '39 was simply an expression describing the scope of the conflict, rather than some sort of clairvoyance.

A quick trip to Google Books yields The First World War: 1914-1918, by Charles à Court Repington printed in 1920.

It’s clear that hundreds of references to the “World War” were made by 1920. And that a second world war was assumed or feared from that same period.

China and the world-war By William Reginald Wheeler, from 1919:

And as the Powers will be afraid of a second world-war, who will come to our aid?

A 1920 future dystopian novel, City of endless night By Milo Hastings, has several uses of the phrase including:

This map was labeled “Maximum German Expansion of the Second World War, 1988”

And during the war itself"

The Outlook: Volume 117

1917 - Snippet view
… not to end the war before establishing an international organization which shall make a second world war impossible. This organization will be established with Germany, or it will be established, without Germany and against Germany. …

That’s just playing around a bit. Because of the way Google handles searches, World War 2 and Second World War and 2nd World War and World War II in or out of quotes and with or without caps may give very differet results. I’ll let Samclem and his endless patience do the deeper search.

[bump]

@Zeldar

I give up. The Gatling gun had no significance. As I said to begin with, the American Civil War was dubbed (at least in the book I was reading today) as “the first modern war.” That was my main point. That I embellished that comment with the thing about little happening in warfare between then and WWI was a mistake I regret.

You’re actually not incorrect at all; not much really DID happen in the intervening 50-55 years, in terms of tactics or strategy, and that’s why you saw horrid massacres in the early parts of the war, when infantry attacked in line abreast, wore brightly colored uniforms, etc… They got mowed down by machine gun fire, quick-firing artillery, etc… that were not present during the Civil War.

So they reverted to the other innovation of the Civil War- trenches.

The Civil War followed much the same pattern, BTW- they fought Napoleon/Wellington style, but with weapons like rifled muskets and breechloading artillery, which is half the reason for the carnage. Same goes for WWII in a sense; while tactical slaughters by tanks weren’t really the case, the strategic slaughter due to the concept of blitzkrieg and mobile warfare are much the same thing with respect to the French and the way they fought.