was the cold war actually world war Iv? and world war II was actually world war III?

Question

the Napoleonic wars were actually world war I, the great war is world war II, and the war against the axis powers was world war II... and the war between the west and radical Islam world war V?

they where Global wars, with global implications, and many nations on different continents participated in the fighting.

Answer 1

If you want to start getting down to it, the American Revolution could be counted as WWI as it's been stated that there were world wide elements not directly a part of the war for American independence that Britian was having to fight on a global scale. At the same time the French and Indian War was part of a larger global war fought between Britain and France, the Seven Years War. And that could be called a WWI.



But neither of these is a WWI. And the Napoleonic Wars were not a single war but a series of wars, thus they can not be a WWI. What really makes WWI a world war isn't the global aspect to the war but the number of nations involved. More nations were involved in the world wars than in any one of the Napoleonic wars.

Answer 2

Actually as case could be made the Seven Years' War was WWI so the Napoleonic Wars were WWII, WWI was actually WW III and WWII was actually World War IV. The Cold War couldn't be a world war since there was no fighting between us and the Russians and as for the current battle against radical Islam could be World War IV.

Answer 3

There have simplest been two very enormous scale wars in ultra-modern historical past, World conflict I and World warfare II. Each of these were touted as being the last wars. After both of those wars, people have been horrified on the aftermath. Pictures of bleeding men in bloodless trenches and chlorine fuel assaults swept the arena after WWI. Woodrow Wilson tried to create the League of countries, a governing physique much like the UN, but failed. World warfare I used to be even nicknamed "The struggle to finish All Wars." After WWII, men and women have been once more scared out of their mind. America unveiled a powerful new weapon, the atomic bomb, and plenty of areas were bombed. Oodles of innocent people died in firebombed Dresden, London used to be additionally bombed through the Nazis, american citizens were incredulous after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, and many others. There used to be speak of peace within the international community, and companies such because the UN and NATO were formed to quell future wars and bog down the development of violent dictatorial regimes. As you can tell, this did not work there will perpetually be humans claiming that a different warfare will sap mankind's craving. There will invariably be wars to prove these folks wrong. EDIT: one more speedy look at your query has piqued my curiosity. The primary sentences I glanced throughout in my re-reading of your post have been these: "In a country like the us, it disgusts me to look the youths of today. Their sheer vanity, lack of understanding, and uneducated minds irked me to no end. If there was an additional battle, most of us would no longer live by means of it, however there may also be so much "just right effects" from it." My question is that this: who are you to call the united states's adolescence ignorant whilst you made a nerve-racking shift in the first two sentences that I quoted (disgusts --> irked), and had an limitation with parallel structure in the list on sentence #2? Also, instead of "many" you used the phrase "much" in sentence #three. All i'm announcing is that you must no longer call others ignorant when you are not able to even use grammar safely.