The previous two wars involved theatres of conflict rather than being totally seperate. Italy and Germany (along with it's subject/occupied states such as Austria) were firm allies as was Japan (although nothing came of it).
In T2K the Italian conflict was essentially different in origin to that involving Nato in northern Europe. Nato was effectively fighting several wars at the same time against Pact forces and Greco-Italian forces. I'm not sure if the middle east could be considered a different war, or just a different theatre in regard to Nato - have to look closer at the causes behind it.
Something else to keep in mind that while some participants may feel they're only involved in one war, others may feel differently. For example, the Italians attacked Nato as a direct result of Nato running the Greek blockade on Turkey. Nato could argue they were delivering supplies to help Turkey against the Soviets and it was not intended to be used against Greece, therefore Italian agression was unwarranted - Nato sees Italy entering into the larger war on the side of the Soviets.
Italy on the other hand does not see themselves as entering a larger conflict and being associated with the Pact, but is only involved in a smaller scale "disagreement" involving Turkey, Greece, Nato and themselves - the WP has nothing to do with it and it's basically just coincidence the WP are involved in combat with the enemy of the Italians.
So, to sum up, WWIII is a very confusing, convoluted and extremely complex mess.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudorem
|