World Wars: The Misplaced Narrative

Undoubtedly, World Wars I and II had far-reaching global consequences, but how far can we actually consider them as ‘World Wars’, and if we do, why?

On the face of it, this question might seem very limited in answer. After all, the name explains it all, they were wars, involving a sizeable proportion of the world, right?

Whilst this may be true, it is their separation, as such, from other major global conflicts that got me thinking. And after a quick research to try and back this view up, I decided I still don’t understand why we distinguish those two as ‘World Wars’. To fully explain my point, I am going to have to delve further into history and set the scene a little, into the mid-18^th century, and talk of the Seven Years War of 1756-1763. 

Now I will admit that I hadn’t even heard of this war myself until I looked further, but it is remarkably significant. It emanated from French forces expanding into the Ohio River Valley in America in 1756, which brought them into conflict with colonial British troops, and a series of battles followed. The war saw two coalitions, one led by Britain which included Prussia and Portugal; the other led by the French including the Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire and Sweden.  As it turned out, it was not only Europe involved – France also invaded the British-held Indian province of Bengal. Along with the American involvement, this leaves the war present in three continents; North America, Asia and Europe.

The total death count lay at 1 million, which at the time was a staggering amount. Mind if you consider it was throughout three continents, this number isn’t comparable to those of later wars. The war did bring about the eventual establishment of the first American President though, a clear significance.

The second set of wars I want to touch on before I reach the World Wars, are the Napoleonic Wars of 1803-1815. These, as the name would state, were a series of battles fought by Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte after he had established control of France following the attempted revolution. There is no distinct cause as such, other than the simple fact that the power-hungry and driven Napoleon wanted to expand his Empire both in Europe and out of it.

Again though, the war split Europe. It was effectively the French and their conquered territories fighting a series of coalitions, mainly spearheaded by the British. Many of the conflict took place in Europe, as you would expect, but the fighting spread to North America, India and the Caribbean, where both France and England had colonial strength. The eventual defeat of Napoleon came at the expense of over 6 million casualties, and though he tried again to re-establish conflict, he was easily suppressed again and exiled to St. Helena.

So, the First World War, the Great War. Spanning four years, it was the deadliest conflict in history at the time, with 16 million deaths and many more casualties. The cause of the war is very complicated, some suggest it lies at the roots of the Franco-Prussian wars of the late century, others that it was due to the immediate build-up, with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The four years it lasted were bloody, brutal, inhumane. By its conclusion, Europe was in pieces, and was striving to never let anything as vitriolic happen again. The allied forces crippled Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, in an attempt to stop them ever gaining the power to fight.

As everyone knows, it had the adverse effect. Hitler rose to power as people became desperate in the wake of economic crisis and engaged in a war with the Allies with a death toll of around 60 million. His negative legacy will always live on, as a reminder to us all of the importance of equality (or equity if that floats your boat).

But through all this, the four wars I have mentioned have more similarities than they do differences.

It is clear that the pair of World Wars shape our understanding of the political and social world today, and I do think it is thought-provoking how simple labels can change our perception of history.

Imagine if the two sets previously had been named World Wars from a historical perspective from the outset. Would we now be studying the Four World Wars?

It seems a silly proposition to make, granted, but I fail to see why it is like this. The term ‘world war’ is a very vague one. It instantly paints a picture of the entire world fighting in conflict. And although the two World Wars were global, they were no more global than the two previous wars; they covered similar territory continent-wise.

Hitler might have been spreading hate propaganda, but in some ways, his desire for glory bears similarities to Napoleon. Napoleon wanted to spread the French revolutionary values of ‘liberty and equality’, and it could be strongly argued that this is much like that of the fascist ruler, though simply in different forms (and greatly less oppressive).

Many would, and have when I started to divulge in this topic this morning, point to the fact that World Wars I and II had a considerably higher death toll than the previous two. A combined death total of in excess of 76 million totally dwarfs the 7 million that died as a result of the Napoleonic Wars and the Seven Years War.

But in my eyes, it just isn’t as simple as that.

We have to consider the technological advancements made from the times of the 1750’s to the 1940’s – in the midst of that time period were the Industrial Revolution and Scientific Revolution in Europe, where weaponry developed exponentially. Those figures can easily be dissected too – the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wiped out more than 100,000 in two single attacks. Clearly this wouldn’t have been possible before.

You can apply that even now. The advancement of nuclear weapons now means that feasibly, if we were to have another war tomorrow, the whole world could be wiped out.

To me, technological advancements don’t make a war more significant or more of a ‘World War’. There is no denying the significance of the Two World Wars on modern life, but at the same time, the Seven Years War led to the establishment of America, now probably the most powerful country in the world, and had Napoleon not been defeated, he would most likely have taken control in a similar vein that Hitler would have if he was successful.

The linguistics of it are fascinating. If the labelling of even one of the aforementioned wars was different, this argument may be completely converse.

I guess that just highlights how important historical events are, yet how easily they can be rewritten.