As the one-year anniversary of this blog draws nearer, I decided to write a piece that was both different and special. The following has nothing to do with film or the film industry, but a much more important subject that’s significant to this day.
In the United States, if someone asked what Sept. 1 meant to you this year, the likely answer might be a three-day weekend. However, the world viewed the date in a different light 75 years ago.
On Sept. 1, 1939, German military forces entered Poland with the sole purpose of occupying the country. This action would result in Britain and France declaring war on Germany two days later, and plunge the world into turmoil. But Germany mustn’t receive all the blame, as events occurring in Southeast Asia throughout the 1930s—the reaches of the former Empire of Japan—also contributed to the tyrannical chaos which consumed the world in the 1940s.
Realizing 75 years have passed since that fateful day in Europe brought two thoughts to mind: humanity’s obsession with waging war, and the inescapable subject of World War III.
The idea of World War III is pervasive to the human mind, and has been since the end of World War II in 1945. Many of us sit around wondering when the next Great War will hit, particularly the world’s political leaders, who are under the utmost pressure to prevent such a conflict. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 is widely regarded as the closest we’ve come to World War III, or full-scale nuclear war.
What does the concept of World War III really mean though? We seem to throw it around without giving it much thought, especially in the heat of a new international crisis. The Crimean crisis in February and March was the most recent I heard the term used; friends of mine wondering if we were heading for World War III. The North Korean nuclear threat in March 2013 was another instance in which the term came about. But it was during the Crimean crisis when I began to re-examine the meaning of World War III.
A New Perspective
In March I learned that Winston Churchill once described the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) as being history’s first world war. In the fifth chapter of his book “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Vol. 3: The Age of Revolution,” Churchill tells of Britain’s challenge with fighting France in multiple theaters—in Europe, the New World and the East—during the Seven Years’ War.
“War with France would be a world war—the first in history…”
Churchill stressed Britain’s need to defeat France on all fronts in order to prevent future global conflict, a concept which, according to Churchill, was new to warfare at the time.
The Seven Years’ War spanned Europe, the Americas, Africa, India and the Philippines, and it involved the world’s great powers of the time, the largest belligerents of which were Britain and France. As many as 15 nations participated in the conflict, with more than 1 million military and civilian losses on both sides. The sheer scale of the conflict and its effect on the world serves as Churchill’s criteria for labeling the Seven Years’ War as the first world war.
Two chapters onward, getting into the eruption of the American War of Independence, Churchill also describes the conflict that gave the U.S. its independence from Britain as a world war.
When referring to the signing of the 1778 Franco–American Treaty between France and the American colonies, Churchill states:
“Thus began another world war, and Britain was without a single ally.”
This logic led me to view the concept of a world war in a different way. The concept itself is more than the mere title of a specific conflict, as with World War I and World War II. Why are these two conflicts recognized as such, but not those before them? One might say it’s because the term “world war” didn’t exist at the time, and while that’s true, it doesn’t render those conflicts ineligible.
What exactly is a world war then? Going by the simplest definition, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a world war as “a war involving many nations of the world.” The OED states the term originates from a publication titled People’s Journal in 1848:
“A war amongst the great powers is now necessarily a world-war.”
The OED fails to offer the author’s identity, but the statement speaks for itself.
If this definition provides the soul criteria for a world war, then it is accurate to say there have been world wars dating as far back as 5th century BC. Of course, this doesn’t mean World War I (1914 –1918) bears any inferior significance.
There’s no denying World War I changed warfare forever. It was the first war to erupt on an industrious scale, resulting in an estimated 15 million losses. Heavy machine guns, poison gas, tanks, airplanes and submarines made their wartime debut, and their use left a lasting impact on the world. The substantial loss of life and weaponry made it so war would never be thought of, or fought, in the same way ever again, hence the conflict’s designations “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars.”
However, despite World War I’s impact, Churchill illustrates that there is more to a world war than a name alone. In fact, World War I didn’t even receive its numeric title until the buildup of World War II. The first known use of both terms was in the June 12, 1939 issue of Time Magazine in a piece titled “Europe: War Machines.”
“In World War II it is possible that even nations who do not take sides may play a vital military role, for they may be invaded.”
“In World War I, for example, command of the air changed hands several times…”
In three other instances, the article also refers to World War I as “the World War.” One example being:
“Failure of leadership lost the World War for Germany…”
Following the Sept. 3 war declarations by Britain and France in 1939, the concept of World War II first appeared in the press on Sept. 4 in the Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad—“The second World War broke out yesterday at 11 a.m.” Continuous references such as this resulted in the term’s inevitable association with the world’s deadliest conflict.
Due to the scale and substantial loss of life, I certainly understand why people at the time would assign these conflicts their respected labels. But looking at it from Churchill’s perspective, the labels are inaccurate, and in that case, one might ask why we identify the conflicts as World Wars I and II. It’s a fair question, as Churchill makes a solid point regarding the Seven Years’ War being the true first world war. If we’re going to label the world wars numerically, World Wars I and II would be further down the line, given four candidates stand between the Seven Years’ War and World War I: the American War of Independence (1775–1783), French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802), Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) and the Crimean War (1854–1856).
An argument could be made that World Wars I and II are called as such because they were essentially one conflict—two parts of “The Great War”—thus rendering it inappropriate for the Seven Years’ War to be designated as the “true” World War I. This philosophy stems from the fact that the effects of World War I, such as the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations, sparked the international incidents in Europe, Southeast Asia and Africa during the 1930s, which ultimately led to the formation of the Axis Powers and subsequent war declarations in 1939 and 1941. However, I’m not a proponent of this philosophy as it takes away from the concept of World War III.
The different schools of thought regarding the 20th century world wars simply illustrates the free-thinking ability of humanity, and the tendency for one viewpoint to be more widely accepted than another. Due to cultural differences throughout the world, conflicts often bear alternative designations depending on the country in which they’re fought and/or referenced. At the end of the day, it’s about what one deems appropriate, and nothing more. My perspective aligns with Churchill’s, and it is with this that I move on to the subject of World War III.
World War III
I’m sure many of us are familiar with Albert Einstein’s 1947 statement regarding World War III.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
This is probably the most well-known statement associated with the concept of World War III. It’s amazing how Einstein can paint such a grim picture of the conflict with so little words, because anyone pondering World War III typically imagines destruction and death on an unfathomable scale. I’m not surprised that those who think of this potential conflict do so with such ferocity and fear. After all, what other conclusion could one draw from Einstein’s words?
The most common scenario drawn from the concept of World War III is that of nuclear war. There are two reasons for this line of thought: the resulting turmoil and profound loss of life during World War II, and the mass development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons in the last 69 years. The creation of the atom bomb alone gives this theory credibility. It’s the most powerful weapon ever forged by the human species, and it instills fear into just about every living person aware of its existence.
Another factor to be considered is the fact that each major military conflict since World War II has upstaged its predecessor technologically and tactically. At this point nuclear war seems to be the only method in which another world war could be fought. This, however, is a narrow way of analyzing the concept of World War III.
I won’t go as far to say the term “nuclear war” doesn’t constitute a war in any sense of the word, but I will say the term is misleading, at least in regard to a world war. A war fought primarily with nuclear weapons could very well involve the world’s most populous and powerful nations, and can surely span multiple continents. But where qualifications fall short is the involvement of battles across multiple theaters, as nuclear war doesn’t, and can’t, involve battle.
A nuclear war, by my philosophy, is nothing more than the world’s nuclear nations attacking one another with endless nuclear missiles in a simultaneous, strategic fashion. This is a pointless, idiotic act with no real purpose. War is always fought with a purpose or goal in mind. War is always paired with a reason and sought outcome, no matter how inhumane or asinine. Nuclear war has no outcome beneficial to the parties involved, or those not involved for that matter. Everyone and everything is annihilated. There are no winners, only losers. Nothing comes of it, and for that very reason, nuclear war could never realistically constitute a legitimate war, and certainly never a world war. The concept of nuclear war is simply a euphemism for global genocide.
So ruling out nuclear war as the basis for World War III, Einstein’s statement becomes even more enigmatic. This begs the question: What conflict could be worse than World War II that doesn’t revolve around nuclear war?
Some find that the Cold War (1947–1991) served as World War III, as it certainly revolved around the threat of nuclear war—e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis. Others assign the label to the War on Terror (1993–present). Some in support of the Cold War theory even hold the War on Terror to be World War IV. The ongoing crisis involving Russia, the Ukraine and Crimea— as I previously stated—has many feeling we’re on the brink of World War III, and of course, there are those who believe the conflict has yet to arrive.
I’m in disagreement with each of the above theories because they’re all attempting to answer what I find to be a trick question. It’s a trick question because, in my eyes, there is no conflict worse than World War II.
When we think of World War III, we think of nuclear weapons, death on a scale never before witnessed and worldwide suffering. World War II fulfills each of these categories, so in a sense, World War II was World War III. We only fail to perceive the conflict that way because of its journalistic branding in 1939.
To date, World War II remains the deadliest military conflict ever fought with an estimated 66 million deaths on both the military and civilian fronts, according to Necrometrics.com. Some estimates are known to be lower and higher, but the fact remains that when one adds the highest estimated casualties of every major post-World War II conflict, the result is only a third to half of World War II’s lowest casualty estimates.
The line between civilians and military personnel was more or less eradicated during the war. Due to heavy exposure, most today are aware of the millions who perished in the Holocaust. However, I feel that same level of exposure has overshadowed other atrocities carried out in the time of the war, at least to the common mind.
For example, the Imperial Japanese forces massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Filipinos in Nanking and Manila, respectively. They killed more than 20,000 Allied prisoners of war in the Bataan Death March following the fall of the Philippines in 1942, and persuaded thousands of Japanese civilians to commit suicide during the Battle of Saipan in order to avoid Allied capture. Thousands more also suffered in the Japanese experimentation facilities of Unit 731.
The Germans and Japanese aren’t the only ones at fault though when it comes to atrocities carried out against civilian populations. The Soviet Union executed nearly 22,000 Polish POWs in Katyn in the spring of 1940, the graves of which were discovered by German soldiers in 1943. The Soviets’ hand in the massacre wouldn’t be officially acknowledged for another 47 years.
The firebombing of Tokyo and atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, each carried out by the U.S. in 1945, are also three events that can’t be ignored. While Tokyo wasn’t any less destroyed in the firebombing raids, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more well-known to the world. This isn’t surprising given the atomic bomb’s destructive power, long-debated ethics of its use and the fact the Japanese bombings remain the only use of nuclear weapons in war to date. The number of Japanese citizens who died in all three cities varies, but estimates place the death toll anywhere from 250,000 to 350,000.
World War III is thought by many to bring about the end of the world, and it’s accurate to say that figuratively, the world as humanity knew it in 1945 ended the instant the first atomic bomb was tested. John F. Kennedy, on the day of his death, summarized this reality with a single statement at the end of his last presidential address in Fort Worth, Texas:
“We would like to live as we once lived, but history will not permit it.”
The Subconscious Thirst for Blood
World War II was a period of hell on Earth unlike anything humanity has ever experienced. Every day I am thankful the world has yet to plunge into a period of darkness rivaling the conflict which spanned the globe in the 1930s and ‘40s. Make no mistake, evil is still very much alive in the world, and the world will most likely never be without it due to the free-thinking ability of humanity. Our free will makes the riddance of war and evil a near-inaccessible step in the progression of the human species, and to reach that step means to move against nature, which we’re comfortable with in every regard except our own existence.
The need to continuously wage war is in our blood, and we’re obsessed with it to the point where we’re striving to keep it alive. Subconsciously, we want World War III to happen as if it has yet to come, and if one conflict doesn’t get far enough, we simply initiate another and see where it goes; a process of trial and error. We don’t know how to stop, and we find all these excuses to justify the necessity: greed, religion, fear, politics, societal structure and retribution.
We’re always more interested in adding to history rather than learning from it, which becomes a more pressing problem as previous generations fade and new ones emerge. I have the gut feeling that a sizable portion of my generation, at least in the U.S., fails to possess the most basic knowledge of World War II. This stems from the horrifying revelation in 2012 that a wealth of modern teens and, sadly, people my own age hadn’t any idea the sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic was a real-life incident. These same people probably don’t know the significance of dates like Sept. 1, 1939; Dec. 7, 1941 or June 6, 1944. I’m staggered at this ignorance, as it is one of many contributions to the careless continuance of war throughout the world. How can we learn from our past if the children of today don’t even know about it?
Next to exterminating ourselves, we have reached the peak of our destructive capabilities. We’ve attempted to surpass our historical feats for the last 69 years, but we always fall short because it can’t be done. If everyone can realize this and accept we’ve already lived through the worst, the concept of war may finally become obsolete.
To commemorate 9/11 this year, I’ve decided to stray away from anything relating to destruction and death.
Frame by Frame 