When was "World War 2" First Used?

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@bump

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.

Hello bump, ever heard of Crimea, Franco-Prussian war, and on, and on? Guess not, by what you wrote.

@bump

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

That’s nice dude, except trenches had been part of warfare in Europe long before the US even existed.

@bump

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.

Could you be more generic?

The naming of the American Civil War as the first modern war sounds a lot like another of those lame historians who think they’ll sell more books by telling the audience they belong to a very special country that pioneered everything in warfare. Like the numbers of military commanders who are credited with having invented guerilla tactics, depending on the nationality of the historian (hint: no one invented guerilla, it keeps being rediscovered war after war).

[Polycarp]

@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.

There are people in India, the Mascarene Islands, the Malay Archipelago, the West Indies, and other miscellaneous sites who would disagree with your first sentence. But your point is somewhat valid – though the majority of the fighting went on in Europe between European Powers, backed toward the end by the U.S., Japan used to make a big deal about its participation (on the Allied side) taking out the German extraterritorial concessions in China (think the equivalent of Hong Kong and Macao) and German Micronesia (which then successively became a Japanese mandate, a U.S. trust territory, and a collection of small nations in “free association” with the U.S,). Plus Allenby, Lawrence, and the ANZAC landings (technically in Europe but well removed from the rest of the fighting.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Capitaine_Zombie

The naming of the American Civil War as the first modern war sounds a lot like another of those lame historians who think they’ll sell more books by telling the audience they belong to a very special country that pioneered everything in warfare.

It may sound that way to you, but the modernness of the war has less to do with what happened on the battlefield than what led up to it. The use of railroads to move troops and supplies, telegraphy to keep both field commanders and headquarters staff - not to mention politicians - appraised of conditions moment by moment, the ability of war correspondents to transmit current info to the public, are all part of the advances in communications and transportation that have no real analog in earlier major wars. On the battlefield, they were used to move and marshal troops in innovative ways. And that’s in addition to the variety of technological innovations including iron-clad warships, submarines, balloons, flame throwers, grenades, land mines, improved rifles, and repeating rifles (and not the Gatling which was never used even once), that were tried out to various degrees of success in a way you don’t see as a body until WWI. Oh, and anesthetics.

I’d be comfortable calling the Civil War the first modern war if I had never read a single report of a battle. The size and scope of the war had no parallel since the Napoleonic Wars and those simply preceded everything we call modern.

I can’t imagine how you can not call it the first modern war and what you would put in its place.

[Mk_VII]

Colonel Repington’s book, The First World War, was published in 1920, and this seems to be the earliest popular use of the phrase.

[C.Montgomery_Burns]

@scotandrsn

Please pardon me and my ethnocentrism/complete lack of knowldge in this area of history since my history teachers all spent so much time on the Civil War we always ran out fo semester before the 20th century.

The same thing happened to me! It drove me crazy, because 20th century history was the most interesting to me.