• Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    They didn’t start calling WWII what it is until 1944, but I think we can all agree it didn’t start in 1944.
    Just like later historians placed the start of WWII on multiple different events depending on which country you’re in, the start of World War III will be long before we start calling it that.
    I’m in the camp that the start of WW3 will be the Russian invasion of Ukraine if things continue to escalate the way they’re going, because that’s when you really started seeing lines being drawn between the axis and allies.
    Russia, China, Iran, and NK are the most recognizable names that have aligned themselves with the axis so far.
    The lines are already drawn and future events will dictate whether or not we’re currently living in WW3 today.

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Pretty sure Iran adopted “Axis of Resistance” already. Least they already know what side they are on.

        Really getting sick of people deciding to just like…starting shit instead of focusing on constructive competitions like science or space races to other planets. Why do people feel the need to kill the shit out of each other and subjugate their population whilst climate change is bearing down on us? :p

        • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I am also sick to the core about this aspect of humanity. I feel that we as a species are just about developed enough to understand how a better world would look like, and how people should act, what’s “the right thing to do” - and very much not developed enough to overcome our egoism and narcissism to make it happen, so we do the wrong thing despite knowing better far too often.

          • bluGill@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            For most of history you would be better off if you could kill the next village over. You want to be friends with the people in your village, but if you kill the next one you can expand your farm/hunting/gathering grounds and then leave it to your kids - while otherwise you won’t have enough food for all the kids and your DNA is in danger of not getting passed on.

            In our modern world we mostly have plenty of food (and when we don’t lack of land is not the issue), but that isn’t what our DNA is evolved to “think”

            • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              For most of history you would be better off if you could kill the next village over.

              That is an incredibly stupid take. For most of history, the planet was so vast that people had plenty of room to hunt / farm / whatever. And no, killing other humans is not in our DNA, the only people who feel like that are those with brain damage / development defects.

              • bluGill@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Most of the planet was not accessable. It was there but your local population grew until the land couldn’t support more. There wasn’t much opportunity to move as the surronding villages had the same problem.

                of course when a famon came you got a few generations of peace here and there

    • BigFig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      And some would argue that WW1 was WW2 and WW2 WAS WW3. The 7 years war/French and Indian (not French vs Indian) war are commonly referred to as the real first world war. And then the Nepoleonic wars are similarly thought of by some to have been a world war of sorts

      • bluGill@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        WWI was called the great war, and the war to end all wars until WWII broke out. I sometimes call WWII just the great war part 2 - the treaties that “ended” WWI were clearly setup (on hindsight!) to make the war break out again in the future when Germany got sick of those treaties.

        The point is names are added after the fact and often don’t make a lot of sense if you know details.

          • deranger@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            He was right for the wrong reasons. He believed the treaty was too lenient, when in retrospect it seems pretty clear that the punitive nature of the treaty was a significant factor in Hitler rising to power and then WW2 starting.