What with north korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine, where is the line drawn?

      • josefo@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Germany attacked Poland first, but everyone lost their shit when they invaded France, so yeah, it’s when euro people fight.

        Disclaimer: I don’t recall this correctly, I might be wrong, as I remember they started the thing with France early on grabbing a piece of land that they lost after WW1

  • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Nederlands
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

  • LukácsFan1917@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    All or most of the “powerful” countries being involved, usually directly. Basically take a look at the top military powers, if majority are active boots on ground, running military strategies, fighting and taking a wartime position domestically, you’ve got a world war.

    Really though it’s a new-ish term, and highly subjective. WW1 was the Great War until it popped off again. For a modern thought experiment - could the war on terror be considered a world war? Much of the world’s fighting power was dragged into it to some degree, but most people would say no.

    Long story short, it’s a ‘world war’ when historians decide it was.

  • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t think another war will be called a world war anymore because of everyone’s ideas of a world war 3 being all out nuclear warfare.

    • BeatTakeshi@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      For me it’s more the complexity of today’s geopolitics that would make it impossible to call one a world war. In my example, is north korea engaged in the war? Not really, they are just lending (or selling) soldiers. Also Russia is not at war according to Putin, it’s just a military operation etc…

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    Major powers in direct conflict with each other.

    For instance, the Spanish Civil War is seen as a precursor to World War II, but it isn’t considered a part of World War II because different sides supported different belligerents, including direct military action, the conflict remained in Spain.

    This is part of the reason why NATO nations have not provided direct military action to support Ukraine, as it would lead to a likely escalation to World War III.

  • deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d say world wars involve multiple major powers in full total war economy. We haven’t seen any major power do that since WW2 to my knowledge. Involvement of multiple nations does not make it a world war IMO, otherwise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan count, among many others in history. There’s also not side conflicts occurring in all the colonial possessions like in the other world wars.

  • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Muehe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ohhh, that’s what they meant. Thanks for clearing that up, I was really confused by that unexpected US defaultism.

        • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          @[email protected]

          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.

          • Muehe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            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).

    • Muehe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.