Stormy: Your comment.."Actually it is, because each war is generally the result of some earlier war or conflict, so as someone has pointed out, you could use that very arguement to go back to the stone age and then call every war in human existence the same war" oversimplifies the situation.
Just because a war is a war and has some connection to some previous conflict and one coming does not mean it is the cause or the main result..there are levels of complexity you're ignoring. I tried to explain earlier that there are clusters of regional wars that led to the First World War in Europe (that also was fought in Asia and Africa, etc)..but those smaller wars, individually would not have brought on the larger conflict. And, yes, those regional conflicts have a connection to previous "Big Party Wars"..but not all of them, and some of them are so removed as to be generations removed.
It's an oversimplification to say, "All wars are connected all the way back..so World War II started on this date..and World War I was a totally seperate war.." Really, even though it was fought by the same nations, included many of the same people, and was caused by the peace treaty that "ended" the previous conflict?
I suggested earlier, take a step or two ( a few centuries) back and take a look at the period we're looking at, and then say that the wars of the twentieth century were two seperate wars, and not one large war seperated by a lull brought on by exaustion..and rekindled as soon as the defeated regained their strength..or the ones who didn't get what they wanted got a chance to grab what they wanted. History is a tower that allows that seperation..that allows us to get above the clutter of events and see the events for what they are.