What are the minimum requisites for a war to be designated as a world war?

Question

As far as I know, World War 1 was mostly confined to Europe and the US entered only in 1917 after the sinking of the Lusitania.

World War 2 really did include many countries, but only the major powers where involved and once again, the US only became involved in 1945 or so, after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

So what so we need to designate a war as a world war? Can we describe the ongoing hostilities all over the world as the beginnings of another World War, or are they too isolated? Also, can we call the growing tensions between the US and Russia a new Cold War, or are they fundamentally a continuation of the first Cold War?

I'm sorry about the year, your right... USA entered the second world war in 1941... I've only only started studying international history recently, so I'm not completely sure about all my dates... before that, I was doing Indian history...

Answer 1

This is a very good question, and I am not sure there is a clear set of criteria for a "world war." World War I did feature combat both in Europe and in Africa (though the African theater was very limited in number of troops involved), as well as the Middle East/Asia (the Ottoman Empire vs the British and French.) The US actually entered WWII in December 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I would argue for a definition of a World War such as, " A conflict between two or more world powers and their allies, encompassing two or more geographically distinct and seperate theaters of operation." I would exclude war-by-proxy and simultaneous conflicts involving non-allied adversaries ( two opponets attacking a single country in an uncoordinated manner, each for their own reasons)

I am not sure we will ever get a mathmaticaly precide definition; there are reasons to call the Napoleanic Wars, as well as Queen Anne's War (what we in the US call the French and Indian War, I think) world wars, though they were certainly not what we think of when we think of modern world wars.

Answer 2

It is determined by the media and/or those who write history books. To clear up some things, WW1 was not mostly confined to Europe. The whole map of the Middle East had to be reprinted after the war because of all the changes there, as such many European colonies in Africa and India. I am a bit confused as to why the first Persian Gulf War was not named a World War, considering there were 82 nations involved! I suppose that the lable World War is excluded when 81 of the nations are all on the same side. And, as previously noted, but still incorrect. Pearl Harbor and the Alutian Islands were attacked on December 7, 1941, and we became involved in 1942. Congress did, however, declare war on December 8, so technically we did get involved in '41.

Answer 3

The bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese took place in 1941 not 1945. I believe that the next world war will have multinational forces and takes place in Asia, Europe, Middle East, Africa , USA. I would not consider the tension between Russia and the US as a new Cold War, much worse, Russia will undermine the US and will try to isolate the US from their former friends in Europe. I would consider it a Propaganda War
by the Russians.

Answer 4

World war 1 may have taken place "mostly" in Europe. But it was Europe and all her colonies - thus people from around the world were fighting. Britain had armies from Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand....

I don't know what you mean by only major powers were involved. I don't think we can call a world war the way we did in the past, but if we did, I'd say classify it by campaigns on more than one continent. Even WW1 had land campaigns in Europe and Asia.

Answer 5

While WW1 was indeed mostly confined to Europe, on land, it ranged widely in the oceans of the world. There was also fighting in Africa as the Allies seized German colonies and revolts were stirred up in Ottoman territories. WW1 and WW2 are the only conflicts so designated but many historians refer to the Seven Years War as the "first world war" as the European powers fought each other not just on that continent but in Africa, Asia and the Americas as well.

Answer 6

For the U. S. to apply first strike, a McCain Palin fee ticket could opt to occupy the administration. So if intense means and diplomatic efforts look decrease than a triumphing government branch blend in 4 years, the threat will enhance with the alleviation in imaginitive and prescient of the applicants. Out in the worldwide, i do no longer see aggression for turf exterior of Afghanistan Pakistan, yet there's a actual possibility nuclear will finally be utilized with the help of somebody. If classic militia means fail and governments fail in the area, it is plenty greater risky for them.

Answer 7

I think the Napoleonic wars should be classified as a world war. As tons of European countries were involved in the war.

Answer 8

We only have two world wars to use as examples. Many people call the Cold War and War on Terror world wars, but history is very selective and discriminating. So what do the first world wars have in common? Some have stated it above: superpowers in opposite camps with the majority of the countries on one side or the other. Also the involvement of more than one continent and ocean. The Cold War falls short because it wasn't hot and the war on terror does not involve super powers in opposite camps....just a localized war among rumps states relegated to the heap of regional conflicts.