World War 2 as World War 1?

[Wurkwurk]

I've always wondered why the first world war is considered to be a 'world war' at all. The only major fighting took place in Europe, there was only a very minor battle in Asia (the siege of Tsingtao). As well, there was a limited British campaign against the Ottomans in Palestine, as most of the war against the Turks was fought in the Empire's European side. South America and Africa are entirely non-involved.

In all aspects it was a vastly European war. It was a very huge war without a doubt, but to say it was anything more than a European war with very very minor Oriental side-show seem a trifle untrue.

Like to hear your opinions! :)

[Wiesty]

the way i see it

world war 1 and 2 were both one big war, the time in between was just to reload

[monkeydust]

I've always wondered why the first world war is considered to be a 'world war' at all. The only major fighting took place in Europe, there was only a very minor battle in Asia (the siege of Tsingtao). As well, there was a limited British campaign against the Ottomans in Palestine, as most of the war against the Turks was fought in the Empire's European side. South America and Africa are entirely non-involved.


Two points:

1.Although the vast majority of fighting took place in Europe, there was limited combat in a large number of areas. For example, you had the British assault on Galipoli, German U-boats in combat in the Atlantic as well as some limited fighting involving colonial possesions.

2.More importantly, although the main theatre of war was Europe, the war involved most of the world - nearly everyone being affected by it in some way and being "sucked in" to the destruction going on in the old world. The US came in, Russia, of course, fought, the British had a division of black people from Africa, the British Dominions (Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia) got involved, India sent troops etc. etc. Although it wasn't fought in all of the world, the Great War involved the whole world.


the way i see it

world war 1 and 2 were both one big war, the time in between was just to reload

What makes you say that? Sure, WW1's outcome contributed to the later outbreak of WW2, and sure, not everyone was satisfied at the end of the first, but it doesn't follow that they're both the same war.

Some people argue that the Cold War, though, was something of a continuation of WW2 - to the extent that they were both "one war".

[Phalanx]

I believe the first worldwide war was the 7 Year's War. Fighting between Britain and Prussia against France, Austria, and Russia took place in Central Europe, North America, and India. However, during WWI there was fighting in the Middle East (Iraq and parts of Turkey) and Central Africa (British forces trying to invade German East Africa.

[monkeydust]

i do agree that WWI and WWII were just one big war.

Can we have some actual argument to back it up then?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:30 AM
I've always wondered why the first world war is considered to be a 'world war' at all. The only major fighting took place in Europe, there was only a very minor battle in Asia (the siege of Tsingtao). As well, there was a limited British campaign against the Ottomans in Palestine, as most of the war against the Turks was fought in the Empire's European side. South America and Africa are entirely non-involved.

In all aspects it was a vastly European war. It was a very huge war without a doubt, but to say it was anything more than a European war with very very minor Oriental side-show seem a trifle untrue.

Like to hear your opinions! :)
Don't be too sure. There was fighting between British forces and Turkish forces in present day Iraq (British soldiers taking Mosul and Baghdad and Turkish troops besieging them). Fighting in Africa wasn't "minor" especially compared to modern day wars, but they weren't as close to Europe so the public didn't feel the battles had too much impact on their lives, so they were largely ignored.

[Wurkwurk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:17 AM

Two points:

1.Although the vast majority of fighting took place in Europe, there was limited combat in a large number of areas. For example, you had the British assault on Galipoli, German U-boats in combat in the Atlantic as well as some limited fighting involving colonial possesions.

2.More importantly, although the main theatre of war was Europe, the war involved most of the world - nearly everyone being affected by it in some way and being "sucked in" to the destruction going on in the old world. The US came in, Russia, of course, fought, the British had a division of black people from Africa, the British Dominions (Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia) got involved, India sent troops etc. etc. Although it wasn't fought in all of the world, the Great War involved the whole world.
True true monkeydust, there where small U-boat skirmishes across the world and ANZAC troops participated in fighting the Turks. Yet East Asia, Australia, Africa, South America, nor North America possesed any substansail theater of war. Sure, the Americans and Australians sent in troops to Europe, but that isn't anything more than western powers fighting other western powers.

I think of WWI as a Great Western War - as WWII had major theaters in both the East and West (and Africa too, removed militaristically from WWI).

Anyways, I believe Africa to be removed from WWI. If it isn't so, could you tell me of some actions that took place there? Thanks!

[Phalanx]

The battle of Tanga is the only one that comes to mind, but i'll try to scrounge up some more facts on the war.