Weaver wrote:The real reason? Because it didn't take place in Europe ...

Last time I checked, the Pacific Theatre is considered part of World War 2.

virphen wrote:Why aren't WW I and WW II considered to be essentially the same war just with a 20 year armistice?

Because it was not the same war, just as the Yugoslav Wars in the 90s are not a continuation of the uprisings there in the early 20th century.

Hugin wrote:

Weaver wrote:The real reason? Because it didn't take place in Europe ...

Last time I checked, the Pacific Theatre is considered part of World War 2.

OK, you got me - WWII obviously didn't involve any fighting in Europe.

The point being, though the Korean War involved participants from all over the world, it isn't classified as a World War because none of the fighting took place in Europe (admittedly simplistic, but there's at least a grain of truth to the claim). Also, the fighting in the Korean War took place entirely within the borders of two countries - there wasn't the ground fighting across a dozen or more nations that was seen in the WWs

Actually, I think the categorization of the WWs and keeping Korea out is appropriate - the war in Korea simply didn't have the same sort of worldwide hold on everything that the two WWs had.

I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to define "world war" in the way required to pretend that the Korean conflict was really WW3. It doesn't accomplish anything functional to do so, thus it strikes me as being a petty semantic argument about how to write a minor entry in a dictionary.

There ARE wars that COULD be said legitimately to have been world wars, but were not so labeled. Many historians these days, would accept relabeling WW one, as actually being the second, third, or even higher numbered World Conflict. The American Revolution was a small side affair relative to Great Britain, since they were struggling world wide against France. A number of historians have suggested that THAT period was also a World War.

But Korea? the fact that a number of nations sent representative contingents in support of the U.N., doesn't fit the same framework that the participants in WW1 and 2 did. Most of the participants in Korea did NOT declare war on North Korea. I don't believe any of them did, actually. So calling it WW3 is a bit silly.

The designation of "World War" is also a very POLITICAL one. There IS no "authority" who controls what is or is not a world war, or even what is or is not a war of any kind. these are political labels, not independently verifiable analysis results.

So why the fuss? Really??

The two world wars we have are obvious, multiple major world powers both involved and fighting in their own territories.

Other modern wars do not count because of one of the following

1) Only fought in a defined area

2) Only a few nations putting themselves on the line.

Multiple nations sending a contingent of troops when their own nations are not under threat at all simply doesn't measure up in terms of level of involvement. Which nations stood to lose their identity or culture in the Korean conflict, really?

igorfrankensteen wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to define "world war" in the way required to pretend that the Korean conflict was really WW3. It doesn't accomplish anything functional to do so, thus it strikes me as being a petty semantic argument about how to write a minor entry in a dictionary.

There ARE wars that COULD be said legitimately to have been world wars, but were not so labeled. Many historians these days, would accept relabeling WW one, as actually being the second, third, or even higher numbered World Conflict. The American Revolution was a small side affair relative to Great Britain, since they were struggling world wide against France. A number of historians have suggested that THAT period was also a World War.

But Korea? the fact that a number of nations sent representative contingents in support of the U.N., doesn't fit the same framework that the participants in WW1 and 2 did. Most of the participants in Korea did NOT declare war on North Korea. I don't believe any of them did, actually. So calling it WW3 is a bit silly.

The designation of "World War" is also a very POLITICAL one. There IS no "authority" who controls what is or is not a world war, or even what is or is not a war of any kind. these are political labels, not independently verifiable analysis results.

So why the fuss? Really??

Well it's just a matter of history. The term world war was only coined a few years before WWI and as such even given the term can be applied to many, (Napoleonic wars come to mind) they aren't named as such as they by that time had names fixed in the collective parlance.

zulumoose wrote:The two world wars we have are obvious, multiple major world powers both involved and fighting in their own territories.

Other modern wars do not count because of one of the following

1) Only fought in a defined area

2) Only a few nations putting themselves on the line.

Multiple nations sending a contingent of troops when their own nations are not under threat at all simply doesn't measure up in terms of level of involvement. Which nations stood to lose their identity or culture in the Korean conflict, really?

The definition of a world war is only that a number of major nations are involved. The definition never contained anything about how large an area, multiple continents, etc. That's what people have added today to it.

Rome Existed wrote:The definition of a world war is only that a number of major nations are involved. The definition never contained anything about how large an area, multiple continents, etc. That's what people have added today to it.

As pointed out to you before the definition you are using isn't found anywhere. Further the original intent of the term the original usage and early definition not to mention later definitions disagree.

lucek wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:The definition of a world war is only that a number of major nations are involved. The definition never contained anything about how large an area, multiple continents, etc. That's what people have added today to it.

As pointed out to you before the definition you are using isn't found anywhere. Further the original intent of the term the original usage and early definition not to mention later definitions disagree.

Try the Oxford English Dictionary. The original intent of the term was a war involving major nations. It was a very Eurocentric term.

Well it is an English term, is there an equivalent in the languages of countries not central to WW1 or 2, Korea for eg?

Rome Existed wrote:Try the Oxford English Dictionary. The original intent of the term was a war involving major nations. It was a very Eurocentric term.

How about a quote and a cite?

Either way you're using it as basically "if more than one big nation has sent any troupes weather it's a token effort or actual involvement".

However this is still a red herring. Plenty of sources cite other criteria for world wars beyond the condensed 1 sentence you've posted here and the original usage is completely different. And yet again I still gave you an analysis of the 3 wars showing the difference in involvement between the principal nations in WWII WWI and Korea.

You're argument hasn't got a leg left unless you can show 1 I missed.

Because like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood it's not exactly a sequel, just something to keep the fans warm.



I don't see how a localised war can be considered a "world war" no matter how many nations are involved otherwise we'd be calling most modern wars a "world war".

Well it's just a matter of history. The term world war was only coined a few years before WWI and as such even given the term can be applied to many, (Napoleonic wars come to mind) they aren't named as such as they by that time had names fixed in the collective parlance.

Error: World War One was called the Great War at the time, and only became World War One after WW2 got going. Point is, these designations are given by politicians and historians. It doesn't matter when in the past someone "coined" a term. The only thing that matters is how we choose to use it.

As for the notion that ANY dictionary possesses the AUTHORITY to declare what should or should not be considered to be a world war, is ludicrous. Dictionaries don't even have the authority to declare what the "real" meaning of a word is. They are REFLECTIONS of our society, not authorities over it. If a dictionary failed to properly define a term like "world war," that doesn't mean that what is or isn't well described as being a world war has changed. It just means the dictionary writers blew it at performing their primary job.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

Well it's just a matter of history. The term world war was only coined a few years before WWI and as such even given the term can be applied to many, (Napoleonic wars come to mind) they aren't named as such as they by that time had names fixed in the collective parlance.

Error: World War One was called the Great War at the time, and only became World War One after WW2 got going. Point is, these designations are given by politicians and historians. It doesn't matter when in the past someone "coined" a term. The only thing that matters is how we choose to use it.

As for the notion that ANY dictionary possesses the AUTHORITY to declare what should or should not be considered to be a world war, is ludicrous. Dictionaries don't even have the authority to declare what the "real" meaning of a word is. They are REFLECTIONS of our society, not authorities over it. If a dictionary failed to properly define a term like "world war," that doesn't mean that what is or isn't well described as being a world war has changed. It just means the dictionary writers blew it at performing their primary job.

True it was known as the great war but it was also known as a world war. As an example der Weltkrieg (the world war) was used in Germany.

I'm still wondering WHY this thread was started to begin with. Is the originator lobbying to have the Korean conflict renamed as a world war, and if so, why? It strikes me still as an argument based on his annoyance about an entry in dictionary.