World Wars

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
OK Heresson, like they say in Quiz Show, "I'll take the third part first."

Cant believe somebody bit on that obvious troll.

[Heresson]

Yeah, I shouldn't have replied to his anti-muslim rant

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Cant believe somebody bit on that obvious troll.

I take it what you mean is that you don't agree with my opinion but have no logical way to back up your point of view so you dismiss mine.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I take it what you mean is that you don't agree with my opinion but have no logical way to back up your point of view so you dismiss mine.

I noticed you didn't respond to my post, where I point out that none of the "Islamic Fanatism v. West" conflict took place outside the local area...with the sole exception of al Qaeda's attacks and that pathetic bunch of rogues can hardly be considered a world power.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Heresson
Yeah, I shouldn't have replied to his anti-muslim rant

It's no more an anti-muslim rant than it is an anti-west rant. I didn't take sides. I pointed to a series of events that qualify for thier inclusion as they relate to the topic at hand. If you think they don't qualify either tell me why (if you can) or just ignore the comment. But, if you can't there is no need to change my comment or to dismiss it as a troll.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I noticed you didn't respond to my post, where I point out that none of the "Islamic Fanatism v. West" conflict took place outside the local area...with the sole exception of al Qaeda's attacks and that pathetic bunch of rogues can hardly be considered a world power.

I did but didn't note you directly. WWI was primarily fought in Central Europe but is still considered a World War. Besides many of things I mentioned have taken place all over the world. But you refer to 9/11, the Madrid bombings and I guess Chechnya (and I could come up with lots more if u really want) as "mischief"

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


WWI was primarily fought in Central Europe but is still considered a World War.

Primarily, true....but the Ottoman Empire is almost entirely in Asia. There was Lawrence of Arabia. The Sultan sent a force into Afghanistan to raise tribesmen to invade India. And there were conflicts in the far East and in Africa.

[GePap]

WWI can be considered a world war because the combatants were the major global powers, who had interests all around the globe.

That is the better definition of a "world war", not just a very narrow definition based on were battles were fought. BUt if we use that definition, you can't really get any "world wars" prior to the creation of the transoceanic empires by European states.

[GePap]

And by that definition the Cold War would certainly count as a "world war", though of course, that is questionble since the two main power blocks never actually went to war.

The "war on terror" would certainly NOT count because one side is supposedly made up of non-state actors.

[Deity Dude]

I agree with your first post Gepap and have been trying to point that out. The amount of geography the war is fought in isn't really the determining factor rather the amount of geography and resources the combatants have is the determining factor along with how many people worldwide feel they have a direct stake and take a side in the conflict.

As for your 2nd post, I didn't call it the "war on terror", specifically for that reason. At best the "war on terror" is a series of battles but most likely it is in response to a tactic that one side has used. I referred to something larger which encompasses the war on terror, as well as chechnya, afghanistan parts 1 2 and now 3, israeli conflicts, libya, to a certain extent pakistan vs india, Iranian attempts for a nuclear bomb, etc, etc.

Maybe we aren't there yet because there might not have been the seminal incident (although one could argue the formation of Israel was or 9/11 was), but I believe someday we'll look back at this period, if we all survive, and realize that we were already in the middle of a world war.

I realize not every Muslim is Osama bin Laden and not every Westerner is George Bush and most on both sides probably want peace. But by the same token not every Axis citizen was Hitler and every Allied Citizen wasn't Churchill, but when the **** hit the fan everyone basically kept their sides and fought it out. Now I would argue that, in 1935 your average German or Italian was probably a lot closer to your average Englishman or Frenchman than say, in 2007 your average Muslim in Afghanistan or Chechnya, Kazakistan, Indonesia or Iran is to your average citizen in the west.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
Ozzy, very good choices.

Mongols were damn close to Africa themselves (in Palestine /Israel), and their biggest (well, only) opponent in Middle East (mamluks) was located primarly in Africa (Egypt)... It's like to say that ww2 didn't concern North America or Australia, because it wasn't fought on their territory

A miss is as good as a mile.

Defeat at Ain Jalut meant the Mongols never reached Egypt, let alone the rest of Africa. Given what had occurred in Khwarezm and Baghdad, a Mameluke defeat in Palestine could have grave consequences for Cairo, Egypt and North Africa.


World War II most certainly did involve North America and Australia- Japanese submarines in Sydney harbour, the Japanese bombing of Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory, and the occupation of some of the Aleutian Islands- Attu, Kiska and Agattu.

California was shelled by a Japanese submarine, as was Vancouver Island.


Even in WWI, German saboteurs blew up supplies on land in New Jersey in 1916.

Australia never really mattered in world history, at least before british colonisation, which is - on larger scale - a very recent matter. It's similar (with all due respect to civs existing there) with Americas before colonisation - it wasn't part of mainstreams of civilisation.

So what ? No one said anything about 'importance' in world history being the determining factor. You might as well include vast stretches of empty ocean where significant naval battles took place, too then.

In any case, I said Australasia.

The Mongols did manage to sail as far as the Indonesian archipelago and were defeated there by Majapahit forces.

An army and navy which confined its engagements to Asian and European territories and waters was not involved in a 'world' war.

No war concerned Antarctic, too

My, how could I have missed out the continent entirely free of significant human settlement ?


I did think this was a sensible discussion....

WWI was primarily fought in Central Europe but is still considered a World War.

Deity Dude


Western and Eastern Europe indeed both saw significant land battles, as however did Megiddo in the Middle East.

This was beyond a doubt the most complete victory of the Entente in the war, for it had resulted in the complete annihilation of the enemy who not only lost 70,000 men as prisoners, but his entire artillery as well, including the brave Austro-Hungarian batteries which held out to the last.

Germany's official observer, Gaston Bodart.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/turkey_bodart.htm

The British Empire forces fought at Gaza, Beersheba, Baghdad, Kut, Damascus, Gallipoli, Salonika, northern Italy, German East Africa, the Cameroons, South West Africa and German New Guinea and elsewhere... the Empire of Japan fought Germany in China and the Pacific and Austria-Hungary in the Mediterranean and Pacific.

The British Empire's navy saw action in the Pacific, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean and North Atlantic and Mediterranean and North Seas.


The only truly undefeated German commander was Paul Emil Lettow von Vorbeck, the German equivalent of T. E. Lawrence, and he campaigned in East Africa.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap
And by that definition the Cold War would certainly count as a "world war", though of course, that is questionble since the two main power blocks never actually went to war.

They did through proxies.

We might as well think realistically of countries such as Cuba, South Africa, Ran and Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia and Egypt and Israel as being the military muscle behind the political will of the superpowers, however recalcitrant they may at times have proved.

[Heresson]

Defeat at Ain Jalut meant the Mongols never reached Egypt, let alone the rest of Africa.
Given what had occurred in Khwarezm and Baghdad, a Mameluke defeat in Palestine could have grave consequences for Cairo, Egypt and North Africa.

You're funny, molly. Instead of defending your remark, You actually reiterated my claim that while Mongols never reached Egypt, they were damn close to it and fought an african might, therefore Africa was involved in "mongol conquest" world war and your remark was a completely pointless (or ignorant) one.

World War II most certainly did involve North America and Australia- Japanese submarines in Sydney harbour, the Japanese bombing of Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory, and the occupation of some of the Aleutian Islands- Attu, Kiska and Agattu.

California was shelled by a Japanese submarine, as was Vancouver Island.

Even in WWI, German saboteurs blew up supplies on land in New Jersey in 1916.

wow. great were the battles fought there indeed Aleutes? Don't make me laugh. Next You're going to prove that american continent was fought on during this war because there were some navy battles on ocean over its continental plate

So what ? No one said anything about 'importance' in world history being the determining factor.

Isn't that obvious? It's the case of Antarctica - it is a continent, but so unimportant for civilisation that we do not bother with were there any fights on it during "world" wars or not

You might as well include vast stretches of empty ocean where significant naval battles took place, too then.

if there were a couple of very important battles in one particular part of the ocean - yes, why not

In any case, I said Australasia.

Oh, OK. Still it's only about small islands. Bigger ones up to New Guinea belong to Asia, perhaps they are counted into english term Australasia, but a concept used around the world is different, sorry.

An army and navy which confined its engagements to Asian and European territories and waters was not involved in a 'world' war.

there isn't just one side of a war, molly. I know it may come as a shock to your fragile little mind.
Romanian forces were only involved in european theatre of war I believe, yet they fought in a world war, for example. Such is the case of Mongols, which You missed - they may have fought in Asia and Europe, but one of their main enemies was located in Africa as well.

My, how could I have missed out the continent entirely free of significant human settlement ?

If You insist a world war should be fought on every continent, You should be consequent... There is little difference in of Australia and Antarctica as this point of time - perhaps the first one was inhabited, but by people on such level of developement that their involvement in a (world) war was impossible, had they had any contact with outside world anyway.

I did think this was a sensible discussion....

it was until You came

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I take it what you mean is that you don't agree with my opinion but have no logical way to back up your point of view so you dismiss mine.

Nope. While Im not in 100% agreement with post you made the Herreson responded to, Herreson dropping a snide remark about Israeli land "theft" was clearly a troll, and you bit on it.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. While Im not in 100% agreement with post you made the Herreson responded to