Tom, good job checking the OED. If Time was using “World War II” in 1939 and stuck with it, it’s a sure bet that the term was in currency all over the English-speaking world within a couple of years.
Guys, I still like my definition of a World War being one fought on all continents except Australia and Antarctica. The War of the Spanish Succession is the first one to qualify, since there was fighting in the Americas (England and Holland vs. France and Spain), in Asia (England vs. France in India, skirmishing in the East Indies), and Africa (fighting for trading posts along the Slave Coast), as well as in Europe (England-Holland-Austria vs France-Spain). The Thirty Years’ War, the last previous big one, probably doesn’t qualify under those grounds. I don’t know, though, there certainly was some very early colonial fighting in the West Indies and Brazil in that war. I’m just not sure whether there was any in Asia or Africa.
How about this as another definition for a world war: A war including Western powers opposing one another and at least one non-European/Middle Eastern/American member. That definitely excludes such wars as the Gulf War and the Russo-Japanese War, not to mention the Napoleonic Wars and anything previous. It makes World War I the first world war, since China and Japan were involved in both of them, as well as various Western countries.
Mike King’s posts are great–one thing, though, according to his Mongol argument, the first world war would have been Alexander the Great’s conquests, since they involved most of the civilized parts of two continents and every major world power and civilization except China and the Mesoamerican cultures.
I’ve gotta weigh in with SoxFan–wouldn’t the definition of a world War depend on your definition of the “World”? If your tribe and The Evil Tribe Across the Valley were the only people either group were aware of, and decided to massacre each other over access to the Water Hole, wouldn’t that be a “World War”?
–Alan Q
Uh, even though Congress, under U.S. domestic law, had not declared war, it doesn’t mean that the U.S. was not at war. War is also defined under international law - and I think Vietnam and the Gulf would both qualify as wars under international law.
Korea may have been different, even under international law, since the U.N. had authorized the use of force.
Respectfully disagree with this suggestion. I think you have to consider both the location of the fighting, and the participants.
In addition to the fighting in Europe, Asia (Turkey & Palestine) and Africa, there were combatants from North America (Canada, Newfoundland, and the United States), Africa (South Africa), Asia (India and Japan), and Australia/New Zealand. (I’m just mentioning these countries because they come to mind; likely others as well). Were there also any South American combatants?
Quite a few Latin American countries declared war on the side of the Allies late in both WW I and II. Brazil, I believe, was the only one to send troops in WWI. Nobody sent any troops in WWII, as far as I know.
I realize this is late in the game, but I just registered a few days ago. Forgive me for being tardy…
I mostly want to point out that the American Revolution qualifies under many of the definitions proposed for a “World War”: The “superpowers” of the time were involved (UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, though not Prussia or Russia-- but note use of German mercenaries), battles were fought on every continent where Europeans lived (forts in Africa traded hands, Dutch Guiana in South America seized by the Brits before being resiezed by the French, the Franco-British siege of Gibraltar, sea battles off of Ceylon and battles in India), and non-European involvement (Native American tribes were sovereign entities, and the Marathi fought in India).
Admittedly, some countries fighting on the same side weren’t allied formally (the Netherlands and France/Spain, the Marathi and U.S.A), but can’t the same be said of the some of the combatants in WWI/WWII?
Just a note on WWI from a former resident of New Zealand – IIRC, the NZ forces were the first to conquer an Axis force in that war. When they (belatedly) heard about the war they got on a ship and promptly captured German (now Western) Samoa.
Kiwis (and Aussies) also celebrate Anzac Day, commemorating the battle at Galipoli, almost like Americans celebrate Veterans Day. I could never understand that, though, because they got thoroughly pummelled, as anyone who has seen the movie with Mel Gibson will recall. Winston Churchill was disgraced for his role in promoting that action. Of course, this was before “disgraced politician” was an oxymoron.
“non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem”
Actually Churchill’s idea was sound. And the soldiers in the field certainly fought well. However, the Galipoli expedition foundered like so many other WWI campaigns on poor generalship.
As for the American Revolution, it would fulfill my first criteria of involving most of the major powers of the era. But my second criteria didn’t occur; there was never any serious threat to Britain itself. (Of course, this assumes you think my original post had any worth as a definition.)
As a tangent, some historians have argued that there were actually three world wars in the 20th century. They argue that what is commonly called World War II was in fact two seperate wars. While Japan and Germany were nominal allies, they never actually fought in common. Some countries (like the Soviet Union, France, or China) fought in one war but not the other (I’m talking for practical purposes here). So essentially you had two seperate wars, which happened to be fought during approximately the same period, with some countries fighting in both.
1st—Brazil sent troops in WW2; they fought with great distinction in the Italian campaign. US equipment was supplied to these troops, but the blood shed was their own. Other L.American nations sent troops, too. Give them credit.
2nd----President Wilson used the term “World War” in his wartime speeches. Churchill & Hitler both used the term “Second World War” in theirs.
3rd—Churchill also used the term “The Unnecessary War”. Speaks volumes, has real appeal, & he was right, too.Call him “Unca Winston” & elevate him to an exalted status on this site, along with you know who.