Clive Ponting, in his excellent "World History: A New Perspective" argued that WWI and the European part of WWII are, as the earlier big European wars, wars to determine who gets's to build a European Empire, and that they, as the earlier attempts, were inconclusive. (Or rather, WWII was conclusive in as much as the allies won, but a split between the Soviet Union and the western allies meant that Europe instead was split in two "empires".

Although there is a case for seeing WWI and the European part of WWII as the same, as Germany was not conclusively defeated at the end of WWI and the treaties was used as an excuse to start WWII, if you do that extension you will have to more or less extend that to all wars in Europe from the middle ages, which makes little sense.

Clive Ponting, in his excellent "World History: A New Perspective" argued that WWI and the European part of WWII are, as the earlier big European wars, wars to determine who gets's to build a European Empire, and that they, as the earlier attempts, were inconclusive. (Or rather, WWII was conclusive in as much as the allies won, but a split between the Soviet Union and the democratic states meant that Europe instead was split in two "empires".

Although there is a case for seeing WWI and the European part of WWII as the same, as Germany was not conclusively defeated at the end of WWI and the treaties was used as an excuse to start WWII, if you do that extension you will have to more or less extend that to all wars in Europe from the middle ages, which makes little sense.

Clive Ponting, in his excellent "World History: A New Perspective" argued that WWI and the European part of WWII are, as the earlier big European wars, wars to determine who gets's to build a European Empire, and that they, as the earlier attempts, were inconclusive. (Or rather, WWII was conclusive in as much as the allies won, but a split between the Soviet Union and the democratic states meant that Europe instead was split in two "empires".

Although there is a case for seeing WWI and the European part of WWII as the same, as Germany was not conclusively defeated at the end of WWI and the treaties was used as an excuse to start WWII, if you do that extension you will have to more or less extend that to all wars in Europe from the middle ages, which makes little sense.

Clive Ponting, in his excellent "World History: A New Perspective" argued that WWI and the European part of WWII are, as the earlier big European wars, wars to determine who gets's to build a European Empire, and that they, as the earlier attempts, were inconclusive. (Or rather, WWII was conclusive in as much as the allies won, but a split between the Soviet Union and the western allies meant that Europe instead was split in two "empires".

Although there is a case for seeing WWI and the European part of WWII as the same, as Germany was not conclusively defeated at the end of WWI and the treaties was used as an excuse to start WWII, if you do that extension you will have to more or less extend that to all wars in Europe from the middle ages, which makes little sense.