the participants of both the wars were only a handful of nations. yes, they were probably the most powerful and influential nations in the world at that time but how can you justify saying its a 'world war' when most of the world wasnt involved in conflict? no country outside of europe, and only a minority of europe was actively engaged in conflict, except america and japan, which didnt play a huge role, fought in the first world war. the second world war was arguably a bigger deal but it consisted of more or less the same band of belligerent nations. the rest of north america didnt care. the rest of asia didnt care. the whole of south america, africa and oceania didnt care. it seems highly egotistical to term a war based around a single continent with primarily western participants a 'world war'.