Should the United States be more like Europe?

[Mathis]

Well, it's called a (Cold) war, it had two sides, a winner and a loser, millions lost their lives, and it was fought from one end of the earth to the other. I think that qualifies as a world war. (And I think we're in the fourth at the present.) Consider that what we now call "World War II" began with three separate conflicts - the German-Soviet invasion of Poland, the Soviet invasion of Finland, and the Japanese invasion of China. It was some time until it was recognized for what it was, and maybe future history will do the same for this.

The Cold War was a conflict, not an actual war. And the idea that 'war on terrorism' is a world war is preposterous. Pull your head out of your ass.

[RhaegarTar]

I agree, but even if we admit the U.S. "lost the war" it was only a minor setback - a single battle of the World War against Communism that we won in the end.

Wait, we beat communism? Its more and more likely that history will record us as having eventually succumbed to this economic lunacy. We didn't lose to the Soviets, but we *are* losing to the ideology they espoused (as well as finally being brought to our knees by the spirit of the French Revolution). As the common refrain goes, the Founding generations as a whole are rolling in their graves.

Its a sad day when Atlas Shrugged is actually happening, and since we were in essence the Galt's Gulch of the world for the last 200 years, there is nowhere left to run.

[kiko]

Well, it's called a (Cold) war, it had two sides, a winner and a loser, millions lost their lives, and it was fought from one end of the earth to the other. I think that qualifies as a world war. (And I think we're in the fourth at the present.) Consider that what we now call "World War II" began with three separate conflicts - the German-Soviet invasion of Poland, the Soviet invasion of Finland, and the Japanese invasion of China. It was some time until it was recognized for what it was, and maybe future history will do the same for this.

Holy shit! I always thought the War of Western Agression started with D-Day. Shows me how much I know of history... :(

[sologdin]

Well, it's called a (Cold) war, it had two sides, a winner and a loser, millions lost their lives, and it was fought from one end of the earth to the other. I think that qualifies as a world war. (And I think we're in the fourth at the present.) Consider that what we now call "World War II" began with three separate conflicts - the German-Soviet invasion of Poland, the Soviet invasion of Finland, and the Japanese invasion of China. It was some time until it was recognized for what it was, and maybe future history will do the same for this.

the propaganda designation cold war is not very useful, sadly, and leads to the confusion on the one hand of an actual state of war between two states, a state which did not exist, and on the other hand of a geopolitical dispute over a limited set of issues, more significant for its domestic effects on the populations of the respective rivals than for anything else.

i'm not quite sure people had trouble recognizing the onset of WW2, even if it was not so designated; the specter of the great war never disappeared. in the case of cold war, the term came about in 1947, and war on terror was being trumpeted on 9/12/01, apparently a serious suggestion of how to go about fighting a particularly nasty brand of international criminal enterprise.

the invasion of poland and the invasion of finland are not separate, but are part and parcel of the molotov-ribbontrop non-aggression pact, which consigned the taken portions of poland to the respective takers as well as the whole of finland to the soviet sphere of influence.

given that japanese aggression is also contemplated as within the framework of the anti-comintern and later tripartite pacts, it is furthermore unlikely that this is a conceptually separate conflict, even though it is geographically distinct, as the germans, italians, and japanese also carved up mutually-recognized spheres of influence for their respective empires.

by contrast, it's difficult to see that cold war conflicts, such as the korea and vietnam, have the same relation as the local geographical conflicts in WW2. the korean struggle resulted out of the division of japanese holdings between soviet and US spheres of influence as a matter of a fait accompli, rather than as a amtter of mutual agreement. those spheres of influence were then cleansed of sympathizers with the rival sphere; each side declared by the cleansings that there cannot be two skies; in the wake of these words, came war, &c. vietnam, however, was not divided as a military fait accompli in WW2, but was divided because the succssful nationalist uprising ousted the frenchies, but the international coimmunity refused to recognize the independence of vietnam, preferring rather to confer an equal status on the client regime of the south. the parties are different and the issues are different here than in korea, even though the US and the USSR adhered to opposing factions.

the case of cuba is similar to vietnam insofar as castro, like ho, was rejected by the US and turned to the soviet union--but the interests, again, are distinct, and cuba is very much a case of historic US imperialism.

i suspect we could detail the entire listing of alleged cold war battlefields and the only similarity would be that the US preferred one side for one reason and the soviets preferred the other--even the preferred economic system of the proxies won't match up in all cases. (consider that the soviets at one time liked idi amin, despite his anti-communism, and prior to his switch to the US sphere; consider also that israel is more or less socialist, and switched from the soviet sphere soon after its independence.)

what we need, then, is an analysis that lays out elements for determining when two given conflicts are part of the same war.

accordingly, i tentatively submit:

two conflicts are part of the same war when those conflicts:

a) share an identity of some parties belligerent

b) share an identity of controverted political objectives to be achieved vel non by military means

c) share an identity of purpose in belligerent parties' conduct in each conflict

d) share an identity of time and place

the first element recognizes that there must be belligerence. no armed conflict = no war, except for propaganda like "war on poverty" and so on. korea and vietnam share parties belligerent only if the US and the USSR are considered to be belligerent. because i favor a broad reading of belligerence, then i'd vote aye.

the second element, i think, is where korea and vietnam fail to be within the same war. the political objectives to be achieved are simply not identical. korean belligerents wanted to unify the country at the behest of their respective imperial master and thereby impose that master's system over the whole of the peninsula. belligerence in vietnam was motivated on controverting vietnam's legitimate claim to independence from colonial rule and neo-colonial rule.

the third element attempts to state that a party belligerent must work with the same purpose in various conflicts in order for those conflicts to be considered as parcel to the same war. it is probably insufficient to state this purpose as "in its national interest," which begs the question. in korea, the purpose of the US was to repel alleged soviet aggression, and there is a legitimate argument to be made on this point, though i find it less than persuasive. in vietnam, by contrast, the US purpose is not to repel aggression, but to stifle self-determination. the soviet purpose in vietnam was to aid decolonization efforts and self-determination struggles; in korea, its purpose was not nearly so noble, if indeed it had a discernible policy.

in the fourth element, the "place" conjunct is easily satisfied when the conflict is a "world" war; only events off-planet (which must now include orbiting objects, i reckon) are outside its scope. for vietnam and korea, there is certainly a nexus of time; the only nexus of place is that US bombers flew from the same bases in the region.

[zollo]

Anyone else just felt that tremor go through broadband connections worldwide as a result of above post? I think the Internet just came.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

two conflicts are part of the same war when those conflicts:

a) share an identity of some parties belligerent

b) share an identity of controverted political objectives to be achieved vel non by military means

c) share an identity of purpose in belligerent parties' conduct in each conflict

d) share an identity of time and place

I've seen some debate on miltary history fora of when the end of WW1 really happened. By your standard, it seems that the Turkish War of Independence might be included in WW1 since the motives were the essentially the same, while the Russian Civil War and it's various offshoots (such as Ungern Sternberg's campaigns in Mongolia) were not? Or does the brief armistice before the Turkish Republicans started moving in the west provide a sufficient break in time? I think fighting in the Caucasus probably continued throughout that break.

[sologdin]

OIL--

agreed, under my proposed standard the russian civil war must be distinct from WW1 because there is no identity of parties belligerent (WW1 enemies joined together to invade the inchoate USSR, even some of the czar's allies); and there is no identity of purpose. me might make a case that there's an identity of political objective (dubious), but the time & place is there, at least.

i don't know enough about the turkish events to comment with competence--but i can say that the balkan wars must also be separate under my schematic, despite being so close in time & place.

could we make a case for the spanish civil war as parcel to WW2? under my standard, maybe so.

i do hope that some of our history/military savants will subject my proposed standard to correction, however.

[The Iceman of the North]

could we make a case for the spanish civil war as parcel to WW2? under my standard, maybe so.

Given the international participation in Spain, compared with WWII, I'd say it's a good case.

[El-ahrairah]

i do hope that some of our history/military savants will subject my proposed standard to correction, however.

Would you consider the Hundred Years' War, with its several rather long periods of peace, to be a single "war"?