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?

  • mister_monster@monero.townEnglish
    5·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      12·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        10·
        5 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.