What with north korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine, where is the line drawn?
When white Europeans are fighting each other.
When the Swiss pick a side.
Okay i laughed
2001 probably when usa decided to declare war on the whole world
When multiple great powers on each of the sides are directly* in conflict, with multiple continents being theatres of war.
* as opposed to proxy wars.
This is one of Punxsutawney Phil’s lesser-known responsibilities.
Two or more Great Powers on each side
A World War is a war between two or more world powers.
Thats not actually happening fyi. Theyre lying to you.
The Pentagon has repeatedly said they have no proof North Korean soldiers are in Ukraine.
A world war would be reserved for “great powers” once again fighting each other. Since WWII, the US has been the world’s only great power, facing little opposition from the supplicated Europe and Japan. When some combination of those gang up on a perpheral nation, that is not a world war.
When a country is suddenly able to militarily pose a threat to this trinity, along with Canada and Australia and Sputh Korea, suddenly everyone in America with a cushy enough job to have anxiety as their main problem rather than exhausted living expenses constantly, global thermonuclear threat rises to the level of home burglary on their list of concerns. Yeah I think it’s pathetic, I got over fear of nuclear war when I was like eleven. Every country should have nuclear weapons. Keeps it honest.
Callously, when the survivors look back and decide to call it one. As far as I know there isn’t an agreed upon definition.
WW1 was originally called the War to End All Wars, I think, by many at the time. WW2 eclipsed it by taking place on at least 3 continents and across every ocean. Both are also known by other names that depend on the region. The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties. The Ukraine war isn’t likely to break records like that.
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties
I’m maybe misunderstanding you here, but as far as I know there were about 100 times as many people killed in WW2 as in the US Civil war. 60 odd million vs 600,000 or so.
- American casualties, not total
Ohhh, that’s what they meant. Thanks for clearing that up, I was really confused by that unexpected US defaultism.
Could very well be American casualties only. I didn’t look it up. I was remembering a history class where we were discussing the effects of illness and disease during wars some 20 - 25 years ago. I do remember that our teacher’s statement did not include those killed in the concentration camps, but did include those lost to illness and disease.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Nah, from a solely US perspective it’s correct. There were ~1.6 million military casualties in the civil war, and ~1.07 million in WW2. But there were a few more parties involved in WW2, so it’s kind of weird to frame it as less bloody. If you include civilians, estimates range from 70 to 85 million dead worldwide (not including the >20 million wounded soldiers and unknown number of wounded civilians).
That just makes it more fucked up they said that
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.
Dude, what?
The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.
Uhh what? Wikipedia says ~1.6 million casualties (including wounded, ~650k dead) in the civil war, while WW2 has 24 million military deaths alone.
When will you savages learn that non-Americans are not people.
