Name That War

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

Name That War

thenewgreen · 4792 days ago

History seems pretty sure of itself now that it’s all over. Custer had a last stand; “Bloody Mary” would seem to have got up to something untoward; and the Crimean War may well have had something to do with the Crimea. The clue is in the name. When these events were happening, however, they had not yet been named and people didn’t quite know what to call this thing going on around them. They were probably too busy screaming and running away. And yet amidst the chaos, one man dared to make a stand for correct nomenclature: Franklin D. Roosevelt.

tweet · print · htmlmarkup tips · 0

thenewgreen · 4792 days ago · link ·

Perhaps wars should just be named like Storm Systems and Hurricanes. But just like storms, not any old kerfuffle should be granted a name (storms have to register a sustained wind speed of 39mph) they would have to bloody to earn their name. Like storms, they would be named in alphabetical sequence to keep things simple. Consider the chronological listing of wars via Wikipedia from the onset of WWI to the Russian Civil War with my suggested name changes:

  WWI - Alvin's War
  The Banana Wars - War of the... well, this one actually works.
  The Maritz Rebellion - War of Carl
  The Kaocen Revolt - War of Doug
  The Easter Rising- Esther's War
  National Protectin War- Ferdinands War (salt in the wound?)
  Arab Revolt - Gary's Rebellion 
  The February Revolution- Hank's War
  The October Revolution-  Ian's Massacre
  The Russian Civil War- The Jenny Uprising

You get the idea.

+discuss+discuss

–

sounds_sound · 4792 days ago · link ·

War of Carl? That's good.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4792 days ago · link ·

I was partial to "the Jenny Uprising".

+discuss+discuss

mk · 4792 days ago · link ·

I think that The Second World War is a very fitting name. It covers not only the immense nature of the conflict, but it gives in context in the story of modern history. WWII seems a bit too sequel-ish, but more modern Hollywood is to blame for the connotations there. Still, WWII is fitting in that sense. I have just begun reading Churchill's The Gathering Storm, and he lays out an argument in the very beginning that World War II was essentially a conflict that was seeded in the misguided resolution of WWI. In short, his argument seems to be that the US (banks) demanded reparations beyond necessity and good sense, and everyone was a bit too overzealous putting the squeeze on Germany. However, I am just getting into it. Still the Wars are closely related.

WWIII will not be a child of those Wars.

+discuss+discuss

–

b_b · 4792 days ago · link ·

Au contraire, WWIII will absolutely be a continuation of WWI, as basically all of today's geopolitics can be traced to the bungled armistice. Turn on the news. Mid East...N. Korea...Afganistan...Any country in Africa. All of these places were granted sovereignty in the aftermath of the First or Second World War without regard to ethnic or political differences. Convenience ruled the day, and it has come back to haunt us; I'm afraid will continue to do so for some time.

The name of the war is an interesting topic. Obviously, WWI (or First World War) wasn't used at the time that war was being fought; it was called by most people the Great War. In the book Europe's Last Summer, the author makes the case that WWI and II aren't properly even separate wars; WWII was just the conclusion of the Great War, which had gone cold in the 20 years since the Armistice, and he therefore detests the name WWII, since it makes one think that the two can be considered separately. I would consider them both the Great War, but make the distinction of The Kaiser's War and Hitler's war, since it was they who instigated.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4791 days ago · link ·

I'm not so sure if I agree. I think WWIII (if it happens in our lifetimes) might be better seen arising from echoes of the Cold War (Western (US) Capitalism vs. anything else). The conflicts of today seem an odd mix of economic and ideological ones. I think WWI and WWII were wars that were in part motivated by visions of future greatness and progress. WWIII might be more about just plain old fear and misunderstanding, like Vietnam and other Cold War spinoffs.

The way I see that it could go down, is that some regional conflict (Iran, Syria, etc.) starts to spread, everyone becomes worried that the next geopolitical structure might be very different, and they dive in just to see that their interests are represented, -if the UN can't prevent it them from doing so, that is.

It's so popular to slam the UN as being ineffective. But I see the tangle created by the UN as a powerful force of global stability. As long as China and Russia are in, everything eventually becomes too complicated.