this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
51 points (100.0% liked)

General Discussion

12827 readers
7 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules and Policies

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

considering the current state of the world and things like the resurgence of fascism and other authoritarian ideologies, do you think there is still a chance to avoid a new world war or now is unavoidable?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The term "world war" is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.

In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.

Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You forget the pacific theatre totally if you think it was an America Russia war exclusively. That’s a very European centric view for someone calling it a European centric view for those who call it a world war.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Yeah it's a ridiculous stance to take, particularly for WWII. Of the 6/7 continents (Antarctica not included) only Africa and Australia were colonial participants. US, UK, France, Japan, Germany, China, Russia all were not colonies. Direct conflict occurred on Africa by Germany and Japan bombed Australia. Thus to say 'WWII' is a propaganda title to make it sound bigger than it was is at best a pedantic argument as all continents (except Antarctica) were affected by a non-colonial belligerent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago
  1. I didn't call it an america Russia war,

  2. I mentioned Japan.

You're talking about world war 2 right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I'd say that two wars is also oversimplification. There were 3 in Finland alone with two different sets of belligerents.