Did anyone call WWII WWII during WWII? Or was it only called that in retrospect? If not, what did they call it?

Would it make sense to simply rename the Cold War WWIII and call this one WWIV, so we can get away from this stupid "War On Terror" name?

People began speaking about 'the second world war' before it actually started. That also changed 'the great war' (as in really humongous,not rally wonderful) about the same time.

Keeping in mind that I don't have first hand experience (I wasn't even quite here in time for Korea), my impresion is that the first major 'world' conflict was called 'The World War' at the time, the next one, naturally, was called 'The Second World War,' (with the previous one, retroacitvely bacoming 'The First World War.')

Wether, at the time, it was referred to as 'World War Two' (and with Roman, Arabic, or whatever numerals one prefers, instead of the word), I couldn't say with certainty, but with our usual tendency to abbreviation (remember 'Y2K?') I'd be suprised if it wasn't so.

You'll often see something similar with movie sequels, and we already speak of '(Persian)Gulf War One,' and 'Gulf War Two' in some circles.

But there's a general pre-expectation that World War III would necessairily have involved a massive, almost certainly nuclear, US/Soviet confrontation. I think you'd need something of a similar scale to inherit that title. (hopefully nothing ever will)

'The Cold War' will likely be forever known as just that, and I'm okay with it. Had it gone 'hot,' well...see above.

What's happening now, probably does need a different name, if only because more than just dealing with terrorism is involved, and it has too many other connections (with varying degrees of tightness) with too many other present and relatively repast conflicts. (and some who may fit the definition of terrorists, Tim McVey, for example, have no connection at all with our current concerns regarding Islamist extremism).

I don't pretend to know what that fairly encompassing name should be, but it also doesn't rise to the level of a 'World' war, in spite of its clearly international character...at least, so far.

There was a book entitled "the Second World War" by Herbert Steel (under the name Johannes Steel) published in 1935 that prophesied World War II. Other terms were favored, and still are in some countries, but in 1944 Churchill settled the matter in Britain by endorsing the name "Second World War". See http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928411-3.pdf

But in order for people to call a war a "world war", it first off ought to be one. Otherwise you get "world war" devaluation. It is often said, especially by libertarians, that Washington can't seem to solve a problem without declaring war on it. We should be equally suspicious if Washington can't even fight a war without declaring it a WORLD war.

In other words (ignoring Mr. Johnson's ignorant comment), the answer to my second question is "yes."

The second listed question is "Or was it only called that in retrospect?" The answer is plainly "No", it also called that at the time by some people.

If "the second question" actually means the last question, the no, you can't get away from the stupid "war on terror" name because the White House uses it. They set the standard. Do a Google search for '"war on terror" site:whitehouse.gov" and you will get a hundred thousand hits. But I agree that the name is stupid.

In other news, Johannes Steel, the guy who predicted the Axis-Allied war and named it "the Second World War" in 1934, is an amazing story on his own. He was fired from his radio job in New York because of McCarthyism. He was also eventually convicted of stock sale fraud, although I don't think that that is what HUAC had against him.

World War I was known contemporaneously, iirc, as "the Great War." World War II was called "WWII" even as the war was being fought. (See, for example, Patton's speech on the eve of 3rd army being activated.)

But in many ways, these names are not quite accurate. There were previous world wars, if by that term, we mean military actions occurring globally that were all part of the same war. The Seven Years War, frex, included operations in North America (aka "the French and Indian War") and also battles in the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent.

We can think of the Cold War as World War III (it certainly was a global conflict, even if it didn't go nuclear), and refer to the ongoing war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as World War IV, without having to formally rename the Cold War.

Of course, that would then make a mockery of one of the Left's favorite quotes, from Albert Einstein:

"I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth—rocks!" 'Course, to gays and "adulterers," that might be more uncomfortably true than the Left is willing to admit in any case....

I don't think it's a change for the better to call the "war on terror" a world war. The current conflicts commonly associated with such a war fall far short of the size and intensity of the two world wars.

We aren't in a world war yet. It could get that way, but we aren't even close.

I look at WWI, WWII, and the Cold War as phases of the same war. There was a break between the first two, but the causes were too similar. The last picked up almost right away between the only powers left from WWII that might have gone in '45.

What goes on today is more related to the collapse of the Arabic Hegemony than the wars of the 20th century. If you want a good name for it I would suggest starting there.

It's kind of silly to abstract the term "World War" to include any conflict of broad significance, or apply it to transnational cultural tensions. If we did that retroactively, then Alexander's invasion of Asia and the subsequent Hellenistic wars would be called World War 1, the conflicts of Roman Imperial expansion World War 2, the barbarian invasions and destruction of Empire would be World War 3, the centuries of conflict between Christendom and Islam World War 4, European colonialism World War 5, and the actual World War 1 would be World War 6. Personally, I'd think it sort of comical to label the present situation "World War 9," so it makes sense to accept a more rigorous definition of World War: All-out war between powerful, organized nation-states, resulting in profoundly significant political, economic, and social changes on a global scale. There are only two plausible scenarios I see applying to World War 3, and those would be nuclear holocaust between the US and China over Taiwan, or an all-out Western invasion of Iran.

Would it make sense to simply rename the Cold War WWIII

Maybe the Russians would call it the Great Patriotic War II.

Russian Communists, that is. "Great Unpatriotic War" might appeal to the dissident class...

WWI, at the time was, and was all they way until it's veterans died, "The Great War"

WWII, had a bunch of names, but "WWII" was the most common, "second great war" I read more than a few times in "rise and fall of the third reich" as well as "WWII"

The Cold War was not "WWIII" In fact, The Cold War will be known throughout all of history as the greatest example of the the hypothesis offered by clausewitz about wars of trade partners and such. IE, The Cold War, set a disgusting precedent for the powers of the world, because the US especially, but russia as well, realized, they must never fire a shot, to destroy an enemy, War by Proxy is the sloppiest form of warfaire, I think even macchiavelli touched on this form of defense in "The Prince" of course noone would remember it, and I'm iffy, cuz everyone likes to read the definition of cezare borgia rather than the broad political insight macchiavelli had.

Right now, if it were a world war? it would be WWIII, but this is not a WW, this is a constabulary action in many places, and unless the west wakes the hell up, this is gonna be like the friggen african wars that ARE waging, and have been waging since the 30's, and unless we move it to a WW, it is just gonna get worse each day that we don't actually wage war, and continue to TRY to be police.

If you wanna fix iraq? Kill more people, and let the "innocents" know "if you don't wanna die from a bomb, get the hell away from the bad guys, or point them out, WE won't aim for you, but if you are next to them while we are aiming for them? there is noone to blame but yourself."

I don't favor targeting civilians, but we need to stop letting badguys get away cuz civilians are complicit with deliberate ignorance, or active support through innactive assistance.

Coming from someone who was there (my father) WWII was referred to as World War II / The Second World War at the time. But it was mostly refered to as "The War" both during and after.

Down here ""The War" that first effort at regime change by the U.S. government otherwise called "The War of Northern Agression"

:)

Dennis

As I've said before, WWIII was part of folklore as 'when the world ends', 'when the bombs start falling'. The War whose 'Day After' was going to be one of hellish misery for those who survived. Gen. Hackett wrote a book about a lighter version of that war. Actually two book as I remember.

We never fought WWIII. Applying it to the Cold War gives me a severe discomfort. It wasn't WWIII. We're still alive and our cities are not smoking craters. QED.

That leaves the name open for this conflict... but perhaps only if things go totally tubuler over the next few years, ie Iran nukes Israel and WWIII really and truly break out. In that case, all that has gone so far will be ranked as prelude. Like the Italian campaign in the Sudan, the Spanish Civil War...

Ethiopia I mean...

As the other commenters have said, World War I was called "the World War" before there was a second one. And there were references in books and the press to a "second World War" before one actually broke out, as a sort of informal looking ahead to a future that seemed all too probable. But the earliest mention of a "World War II," using the Roman numeral, that I've seen was in, of all places, a Time Magazine article about Superman in 1939. (It was right after the German invasion of Poland and the article discussed the dilemma of Superman's creators in reflecting real-world developments in the strip. In real life, a real Superman could go to Europe and put a stop to the conflict single-handedly, as indeed he had been shown doing in fictional scenarios in the strip. Now the creators were faced with the problem of keeping the strip topical and yet explaining why Superman just didn't end the war.) And the article used the term "World War II."

It would be amusing to think the first use of the term was in an article about Superman, but I've been told that Time actually used it before that. But it makes some kind of sense that it would have been Time in any case. We're so used to the terms "World War I," "World War II," etc. that I think we've lost sight of how ODD they are, or would have seemed when first coined at the time as a variation of "the World War." But it fits Time's house writing style of the period, which was a kind of breezy, abbreviated, even smart-aleck journalese, "telegraphed" or "streamlined" or whatever they called it. "World War II" does sound like it was a Time-ism coined by some copy editor trying to sound jaunty -- or would sound like it if we weren't so used to it by this time.

In the September issue of Commentary Magazine Norman Podhoretz wrote an article titled "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win"

The link is: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

I have read another description of the conflicts in man's past that take a more inclusive approach similar to Brian's post. much of it defines current conflicts with much larger brush, looking at the conflicts and how they relate to each other over man's history. Cool Article but I can't remember for the life of me who wrote it though I read it recently.
Oh Well, I've always been of the opinion the hte Cold Way was World War 3--in my view (being in the military at that time-servicing Minuteman 3 in Mo.) that fact that we "won" without going nuclear is a Bonus. (I Liked Norman Pohhurtz article as well), at any rate I'm glad there turned out to be an alternative to MAD.

Cakking Iraq WW4 is an attempt to reframe the debate.

It allows GWB to say "Well who should win",

The question to ask is "During WW2, did FDR invade China?"

I would consider the Cold War to be an extension of all the threads left untied at the end of WWII. Hence, we could refer to the Cold War as WWIIv.7762b since it never quite got to WWIII status in my opinion. Lots of novel ways were tested and developed to disassemble one another but one of the partners ran short of funds and we just missed out on full version release of WWIII.

Othwerise, I think there should be a statute of limitations on the naming conventions of wars. World Wars were oh so 20th century. We should capitilize on the nomenclatures of the new century. Hence, this war should be referred to as: Globalization Asynergy I