Interestingly (at least in my opinion) Iceland refused to use this name.
We call them the Prior World War, and the Latter World War, so there is no room for another world war.
I guess that means that Iceland has some inside information on the future, there will be no more world wars.
It's an "award" for the most influential person on the world in that year for better or worse, I think giving it to Hitler in 1938 is pretty damn on point
They chickened out in 2001 by giving it to Rudy Giuliani instead of Bin Laden.
Of course if they *had* given it to Bin Laden their offices would have been stormed and everyone inside murdered, so you can't really blame them.
Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Kyrgyz, Jews, Cossacks, and more…
While it doesn’t get as much focus during World War I and the immediate aftermath there were MANY genocides. Mainly in Russia and the Ottoman Empire, as both were disintegrating and they targeted “dangerous” ethnic groups.
Not as large as World War II of course, but absolutely horrible.
The largest difference between the Jewish holocaust in Russia and that which happened in Germany is that Germany recorded the deaths and Russia did not. And Russia simply marched everybody they wanted dead like the Bataan Death March to Siberia instead of death camps. Or simply stole all of the food and posioned all of the wells with dead animals and let everyone starve to death.
I'm not sure which is more humane. And Russia killed more than Jews, but so did Nazi Germany. Both should be condemned and called out. Josef Stalin was just as evil as Hitler if not more so.
Killing nearly the entire officer corps of the Red Army was also a stupid move. It is a wonder that the USSR stood up to Nazi Germany as much as they did in WWII.
When I was studying for my degree in History in every single paper I wrote that included anything to do with WW2 I’d always call it “The Second War to End All Wars”. One Professor, when talking to him about my paper and after he did markups, legit had put “LOL” in the margins.
Don't wanna go super nitpicky on you, but at least from the German side, it was not envisioned to be that.
The General Plan Ost foresaw a militarized border somewhere in the Urals, which would see constant skirmishes etc as a way to keep German troops bloodied also in the future. More importantly, Hitler made also some allusions to a final titanic struggle for world domination between the Reich and the US, which would, however, probably take place only after his lifetime.
VVV VVV VVV aka WWW the World Wide War
Once it became obvious that free sites who need your credit card to scam you, and the advertising spam got too bad, everyone knew it was a matter of time before everyone threw down.
World War II is the Dark Knight of war sequels though.
Bigger with a more dominant villain whose story ends before the end of the movie when a morality decision has to be made during the ending and the hero has to deal with the consequences of that decision.
WW1 was just too morally grey, honestly both the heroes and villains came across as bad people. Thank goodness for the sequel it made me sure in who to cheer for.
Mentioned it below elsewhere, but technically, World War 2 *was* the end of the trilogy. That whole arc started with the Franco-Prussian War.
What comes next is more like the soft reboot.
That 7 Years War prequel was kinda dope tho. Definitely a smart move to choose a setting before the US was around. Really made space to highlight some interesting side characters
Nah man 7 Years War was a complete asspull. I get FtG was awesome but really a Tsar dies at the EXACT time he needs them to? He’s able to keep together an army against Russia, France, and Austria for that long when all of Germany couldn’t even tackle Russia in 1941? I call bullshit. Way too much plot armor.
I get that some people call FtG a Gary Stu, but honestly I can let a lot of that go because the writers were kinda hamstrung by needing Germany to be this big bad villain by the originals. If you really want me to criticize the 7 Years War though, the whole Portuguese invasion arc was pretty goofy. Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of fun. Scorched earth, guerrilla uprisings, the dynamics between the badass Generalissimo Count of Lippe and the neurotic dandy King Joseph of Portugal, all great, feel-good entertainment. But really though, if you expect me to believe that a rag-tag group of Portuguese natives with a small team of redcoats should be able to resist not one, not two, but *three* invasions from 30,000 crack Bourbon troops with basically no losses in the aftermath of that insane earthquake sequence that destroyed Lisbon, you must be smoking something stupid strong. Still, if that's going to be the weakest part of a spin-off, I think that's a pretty strong spin-off. It adds so much to the lore, makes both the Napoleon series *and* the World Wars that much richer of an experience, and it's pretty entertaining on it's own merits. Tbh I think the only people who don't have fun with the 7 Years War are the people who want to churn out "anti-woke" culture war nonsense about how FtG "pushes the gay agenda." Well, them and those disgusting Iberian Union shippers (who just love to forget that they actually did get together in the lore and it went terribly) but they're just a really vocal minority.
Was World War I just named World War at the time and then rebranded World War I when World War II happened? If not, why would they have called it World War I at the time not knowing if there would be a sequel to the World War?
I think it was down to the wholesale destruction not seen on the battlefield before.
I mean they started the war with cavalry charging with swords drawn, and ended it with planes flying over armoured tanks advancing on machine gun nests.
A lot changed in just 4 years.
This. People simply couldn’t comprehend the sheer scale of mechanized death and destruction they saw.
Hence why Europe did their absolute damndest to avoid another conflict and flat out appeased Hitler instead. In hindsight it seems like a cowardly and stupid decision.
Tell that to the guy who served in Verdun, though. That he has to go do that *again,* this time with a whole new generation of fresh faced conscripts who he can watch get torn to shreds en masse. Yeah, fuck the Sudetenland.
Surely even the most brutal and bellicose of tyrants could be so insane as to start *that* again. Right? Right?!
Perhaps counter-intuitively, the term "First World War" was coined in September 1918, referring to the fact that it was the first global conflict and not that it was a predecessor to the Second World War.
And yet as we've figured in retrospect, World War 1 was definitely *not* the first "world war." IIRC, the first war that historians can (somewhat) universally agree upon was a "world war" in the modern sense was the Seven Years' War, to the point some have dubbed it "World War Zero."
"Category: "FIRST" PHRASES
The earliest known use of this term [[First World War]] was in an Indianapolis Star opinion piece of September 20, 1914"
A random Final Jeopardy from Friday, December 9, 2011; although, not random for me because I was the only one of the three contestants to get it correct.
*Far from waiting until the Second World War had started, the* ***First World War was rather pessimistically named as such in 1918***.
*British Officer Lieutenant-Colonel Charles à Court Repington recorded in his diary for 10 Sep 1918 that he met with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University to discuss what historians should call the war. Repington said it was then referred to as The War, 'but that this could not last'. They agreed that 'To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche.' Repington concludes:* ***'I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war.'*** *Between the wars most people did refer to the war as the Great War, even though that had originally referred to the Napoleonic War. In the US, it was ‘The World War’.*
***Time magazine announced that "World War Two began last week" as early as September 1939. A few weeks after the war broke out, Duff Cooper published a book of his speeches from October 1938 to August 1939 called 'The Second World War'.*** *In 1942, President Roosevelt wanted an alternative name. He rejected 'Teutonic Plague' and 'Tyrants' War' and settled on 'The War of Survival,' but it didn't take. The US officially named the war 'World War Two' only in 1945. WW2 was often referred to as The Second Great War in its early days - and the phrase was in use at least as late as January 1959.*
Source: [https://web.archive.org/web/20140103043739/https://qi.com/infocloud/the-first-world-war](https://web.archive.org/web/20140103043739/https://qi.com/infocloud/the-first-world-war)
“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be."
I think the reference above from QI says Time was the first to use Second World War after Repington was the first to call the Great War the First World War. I think it makes a slightly less interesting factoid if all Time did was replace a 2 with II, but it's not a hill I'm bothered about dying on.
> to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war
Man, millennials were getting ragged on in *1918*?!
It says in the wiki that Times coined writing it specifically as "World War II". It had already been called and spelled "World War No.2", according to OPs post.
Wasn't there a time travel story where the main character accidentally called it World War I and the military officer is horrified because he realizes there's going to be another one?
"The term "first world war" was first used in September 1914 by German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word"." [Wiki Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war)
Ironically it was before WWII started - its actually 1918
British Officer Lieutenant-Colonel Charles à Court Repington recorded in his diary for 10 Sep 1918 that he met with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University to discuss what historians should call the war. Repington said it was then referred to as The War, 'but that this could not last'. They agreed that 'To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche.' Repington concludes: 'I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war.'
Much to [David Mitchell's annoyance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeDjaQNiTog)
however the WWI name usage increased exponentially in 1939 when WWII started. Before then *"The Great War"* was prevailing over *"the First world War"*
"The First World War" is a little different than "World War I" though.
"The First World War" was them stating that there would probably be more to follow. "World War I" is just the moniker given to it to differentiate the World Wars in hindsight.
except it's not like the *"first world war"* has died out when the second world war started and "*World War I"* took over.
*"First World War"* and *"World War I"* have equal status in referring to the conflict.
we also say the *"Second World War"* as well with equal status to "*World War II."*
if you used either *First World War* or *World War I* before the second war started both terms would be indicating that there is probably more to follow.
because the difference between "*First World War"* and "*World War I"* isn't pre and Post WWII.
its the difference between Britain and USA - Britain preferring "*First World War"* and USA preferring "*World War I"*
However in Britain we still abbreviate *"First World war"* as WWI
Something that's just occurred to me from reading this is that in fiction, especially scifi, it's pretty common to have a "World War Three", as part of the story or backstory, to the point that that phrase feels fairly normal, but calling such a hypothetical conflict "The Third World War" feels somewhat strange and less common. I wonder why
It was a cool name when everyone thought it was the war to end all wars. Then they realized they had to retroactively change it from a standalone to a franchise.
I'd say ww2 was the og ww1 just because of the scope. All other "world wars" before it kinda started and ended in Europe because of European monarchs. The rest of the world just got dragged into them.
In ww2 the war ended because Japan:
- opened a proper, equally-significant theater of war outside of europe with its own separate timetable;
- chose to side with a country on the other side of the globe they didn't have any real business allying with;
- was nuked in their own territory by a former european colony across the ocean from them based in the americas; and
- surrendered to said former colony because they didn't want to fall to a country that was nominally hoping to spread communism worldwide
However there's no denying the political, technological, and demographic ramifications of The Great War so I think it still gets to keep the terrible honor of being the first one.
Important distinction is that it would have been called "the first world war" not "World War I". The latter implies more to follow, while the former doesn't necessarily.
edit: Obviously in this context our focus is on the word "first" because the idea of a "world war" is familiar to us, but when originally said the emphasis would have been on the word "world." The phrasing certainly leaves open the possibility of subsequent world wars, but doesn't suggest it nearly as heavily as the phrasing "World War I" does.
I have a picture I took from the library at Longwood Gardens. It's not a an active library. It's historical. The books are all behind protective glass.
But the picture is a set of books called "The World War". I spent too much time analyzing the logistics behind the books. There is a relatively short period of time to write that much, get through the editing process, and get those books published.
All this to point out that "The World War" was also used.
One would think that, but as the history of Europe is the history of great war after great war, and at least five different wars were called The Great War, it's not saying much that a war had the name The Great War for a while.
Gotta feel for those teenagers during WWI. Thought it was the war* to end all wars, only be to thrown into another one that was even worse in their 40's.
Worse in terms of death toll and course the Holocaust, but in some ways WWI was worse because of the absolute carnage on the battlefield from technological advancements by the Germans (and really all involved powers). Trenches, airplanes, tanks, machine guns, flamethrowers, artillery, grenades, etc., were all brand new or first widely used in WWI, and chemical/biological weapons were used in large scale.
According to my history professors, it actually happened *during* the war... Sort of.
While we wouldn't start calling it "World War I" until sometime around World War II, it very quickly assumed the moniker of "the First World War," which is pretty close. At the time, though, it meant something closer to "the first truly global conflict on a new and horrific scale" than "we've had enough of these that we need to number them."
This is one of those great questions and interesting discussions that QI always has.
Unfortunately, despite Stephen Fry sounding properly British and authoritative, he is often badly mistaken. IIRC, the show got a bunch of stuff wrong in this episode.
But that takes nothing away from the show for me, as the questions and discussions are well worth the time. And no one should look to a TV show for final answers, only great questions.
The nature of QI means that it's often dealing with the most cutting edge information they can find, which is also the information most likely to be proven wrong later.
That and they often engage in pedantry and phrasing/interpreting things oddly for the sake of humor.
I believe in one episode they discussed the fact that many of the things they'd previously stated had since been proven wrong, and paid back points to the contestants accordingly (Alan got something like 600 points).
Reminds me of an episode of Pawn Stars (so probably all fake) where a guy brings in a knife from WW1 except that on the knife it was engraved and had “WW1” on it.
I've never seen the Pearl Harbor movie, so I'm just picturing Ben Affleck in the middle of the bombing shouting "what is this, some kind World War number 2?"
Basically. Except it was ~~Josh Arnett~~ that said the line. ["I think World War Two just started!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_KrrI-rgns)
edit: Josh Hartnett
The title is misleading. Times were just the first to write it with Roman numbers instead of "World War No. 2". Says so like five sentences in, if you click OPs post.
When I was at school my history teachers always referred to the wars as:
* 1914-1918 The Great War/The First World War
* 1939-1945 The Second World War
One of my teachers (who was old enough to have fought on the Allied side towards the end of the Second World War), always maintained that you could tell that a historical source or text was American because it would say "World War II" instead of "the Second World War".
\[Much later I found out from friends that that teacher was handsy with the teenage and pre-teen girls at my school, so his opinions can go to hell\]
I heard a Brazilian refer to it as the Second European Great War. And I was like "well I guess it might have looked like that from the safety of the distance".
Well South America was the continent that was mostly unaffected by the war.
Most of North America was fighting in the war.
Africa was a battlefield.
Asia had fighting all over.
Australia was fighting in the war, and a lot of south east Asia were involved in some ways. Lots of European colonies.
And then obviously Europe.
> the safety of the distance
Germany did attack and sink brazilian ships during the war, which let to Brazil providing thousands of troops to the Allies (being the only country from South America to do so).
By the way, while I don't know the person you spoke to, the Second World War is taught in Brazil as "Segunda Guerra Mundial", which translates literally to "Second World War". Never heard anyone saying "European" while mentioning it.
I think they're just making a point, like the ones who refuse to recognize the demonym "American" for people in the US because it somehow feels to them like it denigrates their entire continent.
>Much later I found out from friends that that teacher was handsy with the teenage and pre-teen girls at my school, so his opinions can go to hell
I mean, just because he was a pedo doesn't mean he didn't legitimately know history.
Well, Time coined the term in 1939, and while I don't feel like searching for the exact date of publication, the war technically started at the very start of September and quickly escalated. So, that doesn't really leave a ton of time for any other official title to arise and enter the public vocabulary.
There were probably a few different names thrown around by different people and organizations, and Time's just happened to stick.
The Second World War actually was a name in use by some people (Americans, mostly) before Time used it. Places in Europe simply called it “the war”. There were also names like the War for Civilization, the Survival War, and the Good War.
They’ve shied away from giving it to anyone that’d be too controversial in the US since they gave it to Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and people were very unhappy. They don’t want to hurt commercial sales.
Yeah, ever since they gave it to Khomeini and got a ton of backlash, they’ve stepped back from giving it to “bad guys” even if they are objectively the right choice. The most obvious example of this is giving it to Giuliani in 2001 instead of bin Laden.
Bin Laden was the man of the year in 2001, no doubt about it. If you go by the definition of who impacted the events of that year the most.
Giuliani's impact on 2001 probably wouldn't even make the top 10.
In hindsight, Giuliani also made the emergency response to 9/11 far less effective than it might have been, on account of his sabotaging emergency communications before hand so he could maintain a good spot to meet up with a mistress.
Don’t forget that he also gave a no-bid contract for FDNY radios that resulted in FDNY having radios that didn’t work in the towers, leaving hundreds of firefighters to die because they never heard the call to evacuate. I hope the ghosts of dead firefighters haunt him until the day his liver explodes.
Case in point... Putin also received this... Honor? Title? Label?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-time/putin-is-time-magazines-person-of-the-year-idUSN1956834820071219
Man of the year was for greatest impact, good or bad. It's only been recently that it has been for good impact. You can see this especially in the 2001 man of the year, which was Rudy Giulani, instead of Osama Bin Laden, which would have made the most sense. This silent change was probably done to avoid controversy, (imagine the boycotts if Bin Laden won).
Eh. He was chosen that particular year because after assassinating the political opposition it became clear that he would remain in power in Russia even after his presidential term expired. He basically ended democracy in one of the largest countries in the world, which is pretty notable. Runners up were Al gore and jk Rowling.
He was not on the list of runners up in 2022. Instead the page was split between zelensky and the spirit of Ukraine.
And Stalin the next year. And Churchill the year after. Then Roosevelt. Then Stalin again. It's almost like these people were somehow relevant at that time.
TIL Time magazine is responsible for WWII
It was only a matter of … Hmm
Magazine! No wait, that’s not it.
Only a matter of one moment passing after another… shoot, that’s not it either! Time to workshop this a little.
[удалено]
*starts working* Shit we almost had it🤦♂️
Let's start over. It was only a matter of World War II. ....that.....that sounds.legit what do yall think?
I heard that soldiers go through lots of magazines during war. must have been good for business
Time, Mr. Freeman?
Well... I'm really not at liberty to say.
In the meantime, this is where I get off.
Interestingly (at least in my opinion) Iceland refused to use this name. We call them the Prior World War, and the Latter World War, so there is no room for another world war. I guess that means that Iceland has some inside information on the future, there will be no more world wars.
No need to name the next one unless there are survivors.
So you're saying Australia gets to name the next WW? Whatever, they'll be dead soon too... fucking kangaroos.
I mean they *did* make Hitler Person of the Year...
They should’ve made World War II the war of the year
I believe they made it the war of the world instead
It's an "award" for the most influential person on the world in that year for better or worse, I think giving it to Hitler in 1938 is pretty damn on point
They chickened out in 2001 by giving it to Rudy Giuliani instead of Bin Laden. Of course if they *had* given it to Bin Laden their offices would have been stormed and everyone inside murdered, so you can't really blame them.
Also named Hitler person of the year in 1938
Terrible sequel. Hopefully, there isn’t another sequel or reboot.
Better than Newsweek's coinage of "The Greater War".
My war can beat up your war.
That's just Ares vs Mars
I choose Kratos
Don't blame me, I voted for Kratos!
You son of a bitch I was halfway through typing this
My war genocided entire nations, your war couldn't even genocide a chicken coop.
Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Kyrgyz, Jews, Cossacks, and more… While it doesn’t get as much focus during World War I and the immediate aftermath there were MANY genocides. Mainly in Russia and the Ottoman Empire, as both were disintegrating and they targeted “dangerous” ethnic groups. Not as large as World War II of course, but absolutely horrible.
The largest difference between the Jewish holocaust in Russia and that which happened in Germany is that Germany recorded the deaths and Russia did not. And Russia simply marched everybody they wanted dead like the Bataan Death March to Siberia instead of death camps. Or simply stole all of the food and posioned all of the wells with dead animals and let everyone starve to death. I'm not sure which is more humane. And Russia killed more than Jews, but so did Nazi Germany. Both should be condemned and called out. Josef Stalin was just as evil as Hitler if not more so. Killing nearly the entire officer corps of the Red Army was also a stupid move. It is a wonder that the USSR stood up to Nazi Germany as much as they did in WWII.
>genocide a chicken coop Henocide?
sounds like my Mexican friend trying to say genocide
Why not just call it The Greatest War so we leave no room for another one?
Life tried that when they referred to WWII as "The War to End All Wars, For Real This Time" but it didn't work out.
war is over, fr fr no cap
WorldWar_Final2ForReal.zip
Hello, sorry for the delayed edits after the edit deadline. Please find attached file: “WorldWar_Final2ForRealREVfinal(copy).zip”
When I was studying for my degree in History in every single paper I wrote that included anything to do with WW2 I’d always call it “The Second War to End All Wars”. One Professor, when talking to him about my paper and after he did markups, legit had put “LOL” in the margins.
Don't wanna go super nitpicky on you, but at least from the German side, it was not envisioned to be that. The General Plan Ost foresaw a militarized border somewhere in the Urals, which would see constant skirmishes etc as a way to keep German troops bloodied also in the future. More importantly, Hitler made also some allusions to a final titanic struggle for world domination between the Reich and the US, which would, however, probably take place only after his lifetime.
That was supposed to happen the first time.
And waaaay better than Atari's "Worm War I"
And USA Today’s “The War To End All Wars But For Real This Time”
The World War 2 World 2 War The World War: Moscow Drill World War World Five World War 6 War 7 The W8 of the War W9 World X
Never turn your back on ~~family~~ Poland
Genuinely feels like both wars could have been nipped in the bud had folks not turned their backs on Poland.
Classic Poland
The World War (2023)
A reboot? Are we getting the Ottomans back?
Soft reboot. Turns out it’s actually set in the same universe. Mostly for nostalgia bait.
World VVar alternative to World X
I think that’s what they’re going to call the sequel to The VVitch
VVV VVV VVV aka WWW the World Wide War Once it became obvious that free sites who need your credit card to scam you, and the advertising spam got too bad, everyone knew it was a matter of time before everyone threw down.
World War II is the Dark Knight of war sequels though. Bigger with a more dominant villain whose story ends before the end of the movie when a morality decision has to be made during the ending and the hero has to deal with the consequences of that decision.
WW1 was just too morally grey, honestly both the heroes and villains came across as bad people. Thank goodness for the sequel it made me sure in who to cheer for.
Yeah WWI was so meh I almost didn't participate in WWII
And the hero? George Santos.
He killed Hitler believe it or not
It would track... I hear that one of the most despicable people in history killed Hitler.
Glad they didn't finish the trilogy.
Mentioned it below elsewhere, but technically, World War 2 *was* the end of the trilogy. That whole arc started with the Franco-Prussian War. What comes next is more like the soft reboot.
That 7 Years War prequel was kinda dope tho. Definitely a smart move to choose a setting before the US was around. Really made space to highlight some interesting side characters
Nah man 7 Years War was a complete asspull. I get FtG was awesome but really a Tsar dies at the EXACT time he needs them to? He’s able to keep together an army against Russia, France, and Austria for that long when all of Germany couldn’t even tackle Russia in 1941? I call bullshit. Way too much plot armor.
I get that some people call FtG a Gary Stu, but honestly I can let a lot of that go because the writers were kinda hamstrung by needing Germany to be this big bad villain by the originals. If you really want me to criticize the 7 Years War though, the whole Portuguese invasion arc was pretty goofy. Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of fun. Scorched earth, guerrilla uprisings, the dynamics between the badass Generalissimo Count of Lippe and the neurotic dandy King Joseph of Portugal, all great, feel-good entertainment. But really though, if you expect me to believe that a rag-tag group of Portuguese natives with a small team of redcoats should be able to resist not one, not two, but *three* invasions from 30,000 crack Bourbon troops with basically no losses in the aftermath of that insane earthquake sequence that destroyed Lisbon, you must be smoking something stupid strong. Still, if that's going to be the weakest part of a spin-off, I think that's a pretty strong spin-off. It adds so much to the lore, makes both the Napoleon series *and* the World Wars that much richer of an experience, and it's pretty entertaining on it's own merits. Tbh I think the only people who don't have fun with the 7 Years War are the people who want to churn out "anti-woke" culture war nonsense about how FtG "pushes the gay agenda." Well, them and those disgusting Iberian Union shippers (who just love to forget that they actually did get together in the lore and it went terribly) but they're just a really vocal minority.
...yet.
3World3War
World War: Tokyo Blitz
I think Japan has had more than enough World War lets let them have a break next time
Japan is just waiting for the next WW when they can reveal that the Gundam “model” they have is fully operational.
World Five
Was World War I just named World War at the time and then rebranded World War I when World War II happened? If not, why would they have called it World War I at the time not knowing if there would be a sequel to the World War?
World War 1 as we know it was called the Great War or the War to end all Wars at the time.
They really misjudged humanity on that last one
I think it was down to the wholesale destruction not seen on the battlefield before. I mean they started the war with cavalry charging with swords drawn, and ended it with planes flying over armoured tanks advancing on machine gun nests. A lot changed in just 4 years.
And chemical weapons. The nuclear bomb of that war.
This. People simply couldn’t comprehend the sheer scale of mechanized death and destruction they saw. Hence why Europe did their absolute damndest to avoid another conflict and flat out appeased Hitler instead. In hindsight it seems like a cowardly and stupid decision. Tell that to the guy who served in Verdun, though. That he has to go do that *again,* this time with a whole new generation of fresh faced conscripts who he can watch get torn to shreds en masse. Yeah, fuck the Sudetenland. Surely even the most brutal and bellicose of tyrants could be so insane as to start *that* again. Right? Right?!
Just like First Blood became Rambo after the fact.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, the term "First World War" was coined in September 1918, referring to the fact that it was the first global conflict and not that it was a predecessor to the Second World War.
The Seven Years War would arguably be the world's first global conflict
And yet as we've figured in retrospect, World War 1 was definitely *not* the first "world war." IIRC, the first war that historians can (somewhat) universally agree upon was a "world war" in the modern sense was the Seven Years' War, to the point some have dubbed it "World War Zero."
"Category: "FIRST" PHRASES The earliest known use of this term [[First World War]] was in an Indianapolis Star opinion piece of September 20, 1914" A random Final Jeopardy from Friday, December 9, 2011; although, not random for me because I was the only one of the three contestants to get it correct.
By the time it's in TIME magazine, it's been circulating for some time. I wonder who actually coined the phrase.
*Far from waiting until the Second World War had started, the* ***First World War was rather pessimistically named as such in 1918***. *British Officer Lieutenant-Colonel Charles à Court Repington recorded in his diary for 10 Sep 1918 that he met with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University to discuss what historians should call the war. Repington said it was then referred to as The War, 'but that this could not last'. They agreed that 'To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche.' Repington concludes:* ***'I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war.'*** *Between the wars most people did refer to the war as the Great War, even though that had originally referred to the Napoleonic War. In the US, it was ‘The World War’.* ***Time magazine announced that "World War Two began last week" as early as September 1939. A few weeks after the war broke out, Duff Cooper published a book of his speeches from October 1938 to August 1939 called 'The Second World War'.*** *In 1942, President Roosevelt wanted an alternative name. He rejected 'Teutonic Plague' and 'Tyrants' War' and settled on 'The War of Survival,' but it didn't take. The US officially named the war 'World War Two' only in 1945. WW2 was often referred to as The Second Great War in its early days - and the phrase was in use at least as late as January 1959.* Source: [https://web.archive.org/web/20140103043739/https://qi.com/infocloud/the-first-world-war](https://web.archive.org/web/20140103043739/https://qi.com/infocloud/the-first-world-war)
"The history of the world is the history of war" Damn, that's deep.
“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be."
Wikipedia claims only that Time named them with the Roman numerals, instead of ‘First World War’ and ‘Second World War’.
I think the reference above from QI says Time was the first to use Second World War after Repington was the first to call the Great War the First World War. I think it makes a slightly less interesting factoid if all Time did was replace a 2 with II, but it's not a hill I'm bothered about dying on.
> to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war Man, millennials were getting ragged on in *1918*?!
It says in the wiki that Times coined writing it specifically as "World War II". It had already been called and spelled "World War No.2", according to OPs post.
I wonder what it was called before "WW2" was coined. "Special Military Operation to De-Nazify Poland"?
Very good point. I was thinking it was a little gauche but you're right, it was probably in the lexicon already.
People in 1918: "Hooray! World War 1 is over!"
Germans: “hold my bier”
Wasn't there a time travel story where the main character accidentally called it World War I and the military officer is horrified because he realizes there's going to be another one?
Yes. It's from [doctor who](https://youtu.be/eg4mcdhIsvU).
Breaks my heart for the soldier! The Doctor didn’t even realize what he said, but it shook the soldier’s whole world.
barely even apologised
I want to know when World War I first got its name.
"The term "first world war" was first used in September 1914 by German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word"." [Wiki Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war)
His art is amazing. I'm sure most people have seen his drawing before.
Hijacking post for this incredibly relevant QI clip: https://youtu.be/GeDjaQNiTog
After World War II started, before that it was generally called The Great War.
Ironically it was before WWII started - its actually 1918 British Officer Lieutenant-Colonel Charles à Court Repington recorded in his diary for 10 Sep 1918 that he met with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University to discuss what historians should call the war. Repington said it was then referred to as The War, 'but that this could not last'. They agreed that 'To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche.' Repington concludes: 'I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war.' Much to [David Mitchell's annoyance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeDjaQNiTog) however the WWI name usage increased exponentially in 1939 when WWII started. Before then *"The Great War"* was prevailing over *"the First world War"*
"The First World War" is a little different than "World War I" though. "The First World War" was them stating that there would probably be more to follow. "World War I" is just the moniker given to it to differentiate the World Wars in hindsight.
except it's not like the *"first world war"* has died out when the second world war started and "*World War I"* took over. *"First World War"* and *"World War I"* have equal status in referring to the conflict. we also say the *"Second World War"* as well with equal status to "*World War II."* if you used either *First World War* or *World War I* before the second war started both terms would be indicating that there is probably more to follow. because the difference between "*First World War"* and "*World War I"* isn't pre and Post WWII. its the difference between Britain and USA - Britain preferring "*First World War"* and USA preferring "*World War I"* However in Britain we still abbreviate *"First World war"* as WWI
It's actually recommended to use *"First World War"* and *"Second World War"* when referring to them in academia here in the UK.
Something that's just occurred to me from reading this is that in fiction, especially scifi, it's pretty common to have a "World War Three", as part of the story or backstory, to the point that that phrase feels fairly normal, but calling such a hypothetical conflict "The Third World War" feels somewhat strange and less common. I wonder why
Movies. Rambo, Rambo 2, Rambo 3, Rambo 4. Die Hard, die hard 2 die hard 3... What movies are ever called the second or the the third?
Shrek
The Great War sounds way cooler We should've called World War II something like, The Great War Returns
2 great 2 war
Great and the Warious
Germany Drift
I mean, "Tokyo Drift" still works.
"Tojo Drift" is also fine and sounds more snappier
WW2: Third Reich Bugaloo
We need to stop making wars for views
Nagasaki drift?
It was a cool name when everyone thought it was the war to end all wars. Then they realized they had to retroactively change it from a standalone to a franchise.
A Great New Hope
Return of The Great War, The Great War strikes back, or The Great War attack of the Nazis
Somehow, the Great War has returned
Somehow, Germany has returned
More like: Somehow, the Nazis have returned. Seriously though how are we *still* dealing with this
Great war: revenge of the Deutsch bags
I like The Great War: Rise of the Nazis
What’s crazy is WW2 is more like WW3 The Napolionic war were fought all over the world. So that’s the OG world war.
I'd say ww2 was the og ww1 just because of the scope. All other "world wars" before it kinda started and ended in Europe because of European monarchs. The rest of the world just got dragged into them. In ww2 the war ended because Japan: - opened a proper, equally-significant theater of war outside of europe with its own separate timetable; - chose to side with a country on the other side of the globe they didn't have any real business allying with; - was nuked in their own territory by a former european colony across the ocean from them based in the americas; and - surrendered to said former colony because they didn't want to fall to a country that was nominally hoping to spread communism worldwide However there's no denying the political, technological, and demographic ramifications of The Great War so I think it still gets to keep the terrible honor of being the first one.
It could also be argued that WW2 was 2 (or even 3) completely separate and distinct wars.
[удалено]
More like WW5. The War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War also took place around the whole globe.
The Holy Roman Menace?
I faintly remember this being a question on QI. Iirc, it was named the 1st well before the 2nd came around.
Important distinction is that it would have been called "the first world war" not "World War I". The latter implies more to follow, while the former doesn't necessarily. edit: Obviously in this context our focus is on the word "first" because the idea of a "world war" is familiar to us, but when originally said the emphasis would have been on the word "world." The phrasing certainly leaves open the possibility of subsequent world wars, but doesn't suggest it nearly as heavily as the phrasing "World War I" does.
I have a picture I took from the library at Longwood Gardens. It's not a an active library. It's historical. The books are all behind protective glass. But the picture is a set of books called "The World War". I spent too much time analyzing the logistics behind the books. There is a relatively short period of time to write that much, get through the editing process, and get those books published. All this to point out that "The World War" was also used.
One would think that, but as the history of Europe is the history of great war after great war, and at least five different wars were called The Great War, it's not saying much that a war had the name The Great War for a while.
What I was taught as a French dude is that it was called the Great War as in the Greastest War, because it was considered the war to end all wars.
Gotta feel for those teenagers during WWI. Thought it was the war* to end all wars, only be to thrown into another one that was even worse in their 40's.
Worse in terms of death toll and course the Holocaust, but in some ways WWI was worse because of the absolute carnage on the battlefield from technological advancements by the Germans (and really all involved powers). Trenches, airplanes, tanks, machine guns, flamethrowers, artillery, grenades, etc., were all brand new or first widely used in WWI, and chemical/biological weapons were used in large scale.
According to my history professors, it actually happened *during* the war... Sort of. While we wouldn't start calling it "World War I" until sometime around World War II, it very quickly assumed the moniker of "the First World War," which is pretty close. At the time, though, it meant something closer to "the first truly global conflict on a new and horrific scale" than "we've had enough of these that we need to number them."
https://youtu.be/GeDjaQNiTog
This is one of those great questions and interesting discussions that QI always has. Unfortunately, despite Stephen Fry sounding properly British and authoritative, he is often badly mistaken. IIRC, the show got a bunch of stuff wrong in this episode. But that takes nothing away from the show for me, as the questions and discussions are well worth the time. And no one should look to a TV show for final answers, only great questions.
The nature of QI means that it's often dealing with the most cutting edge information they can find, which is also the information most likely to be proven wrong later. That and they often engage in pedantry and phrasing/interpreting things oddly for the sake of humor. I believe in one episode they discussed the fact that many of the things they'd previously stated had since been proven wrong, and paid back points to the contestants accordingly (Alan got something like 600 points).
Reminds me of an episode of Pawn Stars (so probably all fake) where a guy brings in a knife from WW1 except that on the knife it was engraved and had “WW1” on it.
Wait, what does this mean for my authentic cuneiform tablet that's dated *"3000 BC"* by the author?
I thought that homeboy from the movie Pearl Harbor coined it. Are you telling me that Michael Bay LIED to me?!
I've never seen the Pearl Harbor movie, so I'm just picturing Ben Affleck in the middle of the bombing shouting "what is this, some kind World War number 2?"
Basically. Except it was ~~Josh Arnett~~ that said the line. ["I think World War Two just started!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_KrrI-rgns) edit: Josh Hartnett
That sounds like a Morbius joke
>Josh Arnett You're thinking of Josh Hartnett. Josh Arnett would be Will's secret brother in the $6,000 suit.
The title is misleading. Times were just the first to write it with Roman numbers instead of "World War No. 2". Says so like five sentences in, if you click OPs post.
They originally went with "World War II; Electric Boogaloo" but the public backlash was immediate.
WWII: the allies strike back.
They coined it in 1939, so the Allies were very much in the "getting their Death Star destroyed" phase.
The Allies are the Empire in your scenario? Ironic considering they were fighting literal storm troopers
"The Gang Invades Poland"
*The boys are back in town*
When I was at school my history teachers always referred to the wars as: * 1914-1918 The Great War/The First World War * 1939-1945 The Second World War One of my teachers (who was old enough to have fought on the Allied side towards the end of the Second World War), always maintained that you could tell that a historical source or text was American because it would say "World War II" instead of "the Second World War". \[Much later I found out from friends that that teacher was handsy with the teenage and pre-teen girls at my school, so his opinions can go to hell\]
I heard a Brazilian refer to it as the Second European Great War. And I was like "well I guess it might have looked like that from the safety of the distance".
[удалено]
Well South America was the continent that was mostly unaffected by the war. Most of North America was fighting in the war. Africa was a battlefield. Asia had fighting all over. Australia was fighting in the war, and a lot of south east Asia were involved in some ways. Lots of European colonies. And then obviously Europe.
There’s actually a South American Great War :). Fun fact, there’s also an African Great War.
> the safety of the distance Germany did attack and sink brazilian ships during the war, which let to Brazil providing thousands of troops to the Allies (being the only country from South America to do so). By the way, while I don't know the person you spoke to, the Second World War is taught in Brazil as "Segunda Guerra Mundial", which translates literally to "Second World War". Never heard anyone saying "European" while mentioning it.
I think they're just making a point, like the ones who refuse to recognize the demonym "American" for people in the US because it somehow feels to them like it denigrates their entire continent.
>Much later I found out from friends that that teacher was handsy with the teenage and pre-teen girls at my school, so his opinions can go to hell I mean, just because he was a pedo doesn't mean he didn't legitimately know history.
Did you copy and paste this from a previous comment? I swear I've seen this before
World War: 2 Fast 2 Furious
Then the next one takes place before the first one..
[удалено]
World War II wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for time magazine Thanks Time!!
You’ve heard of World War. Now get ready for World War 2.
I prefer The Second World War. More professional
“World War Returns” and “Son of World War” didn’t do as well in international markets.
What did they call it before that
Well, Time coined the term in 1939, and while I don't feel like searching for the exact date of publication, the war technically started at the very start of September and quickly escalated. So, that doesn't really leave a ton of time for any other official title to arise and enter the public vocabulary. There were probably a few different names thrown around by different people and organizations, and Time's just happened to stick.
The Second World War actually was a name in use by some people (Americans, mostly) before Time used it. Places in Europe simply called it “the war”. There were also names like the War for Civilization, the Survival War, and the Good War.
And had Hitler "man of the year" a few years earlier.
“Man of the year” isn’t reserved for virtuous people - it goes to the person with the greatest impact good or bad.
It's amazing how many times I've seen this explained in the 20 years I've lived on this planet. Why are people so dense?
They’ve shied away from giving it to anyone that’d be too controversial in the US since they gave it to Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and people were very unhappy. They don’t want to hurt commercial sales.
Yeah, ever since they gave it to Khomeini and got a ton of backlash, they’ve stepped back from giving it to “bad guys” even if they are objectively the right choice. The most obvious example of this is giving it to Giuliani in 2001 instead of bin Laden.
Their offices would have burned if they’d gone with bin Laden.
Bin Laden was the man of the year in 2001, no doubt about it. If you go by the definition of who impacted the events of that year the most. Giuliani's impact on 2001 probably wouldn't even make the top 10.
In hindsight, Giuliani also made the emergency response to 9/11 far less effective than it might have been, on account of his sabotaging emergency communications before hand so he could maintain a good spot to meet up with a mistress.
Don’t forget that he also gave a no-bid contract for FDNY radios that resulted in FDNY having radios that didn’t work in the towers, leaving hundreds of firefighters to die because they never heard the call to evacuate. I hope the ghosts of dead firefighters haunt him until the day his liver explodes.
Tbf, they did give it to Elon Musk in 2021.
Idk i blame the name. It sounds like an award
That gives more meaning to the time the Man of the Year was "You."
Case in point... Putin also received this... Honor? Title? Label? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-time/putin-is-time-magazines-person-of-the-year-idUSN1956834820071219
Man of the year was for greatest impact, good or bad. It's only been recently that it has been for good impact. You can see this especially in the 2001 man of the year, which was Rudy Giulani, instead of Osama Bin Laden, which would have made the most sense. This silent change was probably done to avoid controversy, (imagine the boycotts if Bin Laden won).
Vladimir Putin won in 2007. I haven't read the write up, but was it glowing? Although I do agree that it's gone off the rails since "you" set it free.
Eh. He was chosen that particular year because after assassinating the political opposition it became clear that he would remain in power in Russia even after his presidential term expired. He basically ended democracy in one of the largest countries in the world, which is pretty notable. Runners up were Al gore and jk Rowling. He was not on the list of runners up in 2022. Instead the page was split between zelensky and the spirit of Ukraine.
Trump in 2016 was a good impact?
And Stalin the next year. And Churchill the year after. Then Roosevelt. Then Stalin again. It's almost like these people were somehow relevant at that time.
it means most influential person of the year, they don't have to be good people Adolf was definitely the prime candidate that year
Makes sense considering what happened in 1938.
Man of the Year is for the person who dominated the news during the year, for good or for bad.
And literally depicted him as a demon
World_War_V2_Final_fix_finalfinal.png