Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not wanting to derail the Overlord thread, I thought I'd expand on some of the issues raised there.

So, as the thread suggests, when did WW2 start?

Yes, I know that the offical date is 3rd September 1939 when Britain and France declare war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland,

but many would argue 1937 (Sino Japanese War)

1931 (Japanese occupation of Manchuria)

1939 Soviet Union Vs. Japan

Or even 1914 - the 21 year gap between the end of WW1 and the start of WW2 merely being all sides pausing for breath.

So, what do my fellow dakka members think?

Personally, I think it's all of these and none of these

1914 for the ETO. WWI never really ended.
Pacific: 1931. It leads to 1937 and even the 1939 conflicts.

 Frazzled wrote:
1914 for the ETO. WWI never really ended.
Pacific: 1931. It leads to 1937 and even the 1939 conflicts.

WW1 and WW2 remind me a lot of the 30 years' war 1618-1648, as there was a lot of pauses in that conflict.

 Frazzled wrote:
1914 for the ETO. WWI never really ended.

Indeed. Though for the purpose of history, we often do separate deeply related conflicts (the Napoleonic Wars are an example).

Pacific: 1931. It leads to 1937 and even the 1939 conflicts.

I personally favor a historical revision of WWII to put more emphasis on the Second Sino-Japanese War which began in 1937. General understanding of the conflict has always been a little hamstrung by poor understanding of the Pacific Conflict and the geopolitics that played into it. Of course the war in Europe is equally important, but it is called the World War. The Pacific has often been somewhat sidelined by focus on Europe. Imperial Japan is much less understood than Nazi Germany, and the colonial exploitation of China by global powers (namely, the race by pretty much everyone to benefit from economic opportunity in China) in the conflict is almost always an afterthought in the west.

EDIT: The later point of my last sentence is also really important for understanding the course of global events in the post-war world, and understanding of post-WWII has always been conceptually tied to the understanding of WWII itself.

1937 is a good place to start.

However, looking back from here consideration could be given for 1941/42 being the offical WW2 start date.

Across the Atlantic a typical (seemingly) European Imperial squabble is taking place.

The Pacific sees an expansionist empire looking to consolidate it's powers.

America has its hand forced and has to march left and right. Linking the conflicts.

Whenever Ben Affleck joined in a won the whole shebang for Uncle Sam.....

One could argue it was Dec 7/8 1941.

The reasoning behind that date being when multiple distinct local conflicts coalesce into one larger conflict with linked combatants.

Before that date, the Sino Japanese war, the war in the Soviet Union, and Western Europe were all raging but weren't really connected as a worldwide war with linked outcomes. After that date, the involved nations now come into open and direct conflict with powers on the other side of the planet and then have a large linking nation connected to all theatres and form two distinct sides as opposed to the blended mishmash of 3 or 4 before that (with the UK almost as hostile to the USSR in 39 and 40 as they were to Germany, Germany providing support and training to the Chinese through the 30's, etc).

That said, calling it 1914 isnt bad either. One could even use an earlier date. Really it was a period of transition from one world to another, from an old aristocratic, agricultural, colonial, and inherently class based world to a more interconnected, cynical, industrialized and politicized world coupled with changing demographics forcing recognition from those old power structures. In many ways that transition still hasnt finished, as evidenced by the middle east still trying to sort out the transition from the old Ottoman Empire, in many ways mirroring Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century.

It really all depends on how one chooses to view the conflict, no answer really is wrong.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1914 for the ETO. WWI never really ended.

Indeed. Though for the purpose of history, we often do separate deeply related conflicts (the Napoleonic Wars are an example).

Pacific: 1931. It leads to 1937 and even the 1939 conflicts.

I personally favor a historical revision of WWII to put more emphasis on the Second Sino-Japanese War which began in 1937. General understanding of the conflict has always been a little hamstrung by poor understanding of the Pacific Conflict and the geopolitics that played into it. Of course the war in Europe is equally important, but it is called the World War. The Pacific has often been somewhat sidelined by focus on Europe. Imperial Japan is much less understood than Nazi Germany, and the colonial exploitation of China by global powers (namely, the race by pretty much everyone to benefit from economic opportunity in China) in the conflict is almost always an afterthought in the west.

EDIT: The later point of my last sentence is also really important for understanding the course of global events in the post-war world, and understanding of post-WWII has always been conceptually tied to the understanding of WWII itself.

Yes, but you're forgetting that a European war wasn't strictly European, becuase as you know, Britain and France, Britain in p[articular, had vast global Empires, which is why you can argue it is a world war, and not a European one.

Canadian troops arrived in Britain in 1939.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
1937 is a good place to start.

However, looking back from here consideration could be given for 1941/42 being the offical WW2 start date.

Across the Atlantic a typical (seemingly) European Imperial squabble is taking place.

The Pacific sees an expansionist empire looking to consolidate it's powers.

America has its hand forced and has to march left and right. Linking the conflicts.

I'm not convinced by 1937, because the argument for saying the war in Europe was regional, could equally be applied to the war between Japan and China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
One could argue it was Dec 7/8 1941.

The reasoning behind that date being when multiple distinct local conflicts coalesce into one larger conflict with linked combatants.

Before that date, the Sino Japanese war, the war in the Soviet Union, and Western Europe were all raging but weren't really connected as a worldwide war with linked outcomes. After that date, the involved nations now come into open and direct conflict with powers on the other side of the planet and then have a large linking nation connected to all theatres and form two distinct sides as opposed to the blended mishmash of 3 or 4 before that (with the UK almost as hostile to the USSR in 39 and 40 as they were to Germany, Germany providing support and training to the Chinese through the 30's, etc).

That said, calling it 1914 isnt bad either. One could even use an earlier date. Really it was a period of transition from one world to another, from an old aristocratic, agricultural, colonial, and inherently class based world to a more interconnected, cynical, industrialized and politicized world coupled with changing demographics forcing recognition from those old power structures. In many ways that transition still hasnt finished, as evidenced by the middle east still trying to sort out the transition from the old Ottoman Empire, in many ways mirroring Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century.

It really all depends on how one chooses to view the conflict, no answer really is wrong.

Britain was fighting the Italians in Africa before Pearl Harbour, and a lot of sea battles and U-Boat warfare was happening in the South Atlantic.

Battle of the River Plate in 1939 being a good example.

Thats what I meant.

Both were really regional conflicts that were then linked when the US was forced to join against Japan and Germany.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One could argue it was Dec 7/8 1941.

The reasoning behind that date being when multiple distinct local conflicts coalesce into one larger conflict with linked combatants.

Ew now there's a new perspective.

One could say that WW1 never ended.

I generally go with 1937 with the Sino-Japanese war. Because it was when one half of the axis powers went to war.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Britain was fighting the Italians in Africa before Pearl Harbour, and a lot of sea battles and U-Boat warfare was happening in the South Atlantic.

Battle of the River Plate in 1939 being a good example.

sure, but North Africa was European powers fighting other European powers in places that are largely fairly close to those home nations (e.g. Libya and Italy). After Dec 8, you have Europeans and Americans now fighting an Asian power in Asia in conjunction with other Asian peoples in multiple battlezones across both land and sea, with critical battlefields many thousands of miles from any combatants home soil. Likewise, while there were skirmishes in places like the South Atlantic, these were really more incidental due to the nature of naval warfare, they werent major strategic theatres.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Britain was fighting the Italians in Africa before Pearl Harbour, and a lot of sea battles and U-Boat warfare was happening in the South Atlantic.

Battle of the River Plate in 1939 being a good example.

sure, but North Africa was European powers fighting other European powers in places that are largely fairly close to those home nations (e.g. Libya and Italy). After Dec 8, you have Europeans and Americans now fighting an Asian power in Asia in conjunction with other Asian peoples in multiple battlezones across both land and sea, with critical battlefields many thousands of miles from any combatants home soil. Likewise, while there were skirmishes in places like the South Atlantic, these were really more incidental due to the nature of naval warfare, they werent major strategic theatres.

Agreed, but other minor points to consider:

1) Britain had troops from all over the world fighting for it pre-1941. Australians in North Africa and Greece, Canadian Divisions in Britain from late 1939. That's obviously global.

2) The US Navy was in a de facto state of war in the Atlantic against Germany's U-Boats from 1940 onwards, including the occupation of Iceland, so you can argue, the USA was in before 1941, plus the Flying Tigers in China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
One could say that WW1 never ended.

I generally go with 1937 with the Sino-Japanese war. Because it was when one half of the axis powers went to war.

What about the Spanish Civil War?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Britain was fighting the Italians in Africa before Pearl Harbour, and a lot of sea battles and U-Boat warfare was happening in the South Atlantic.

Battle of the River Plate in 1939 being a good example.

sure, but North Africa was European powers fighting other European powers in places that are largely fairly close to those home nations (e.g. Libya and Italy). After Dec 8, you have Europeans and Americans now fighting an Asian power in Asia in conjunction with other Asian peoples in multiple battlezones across both land and sea, with critical battlefields many thousands of miles from any combatants home soil. Likewise, while there were skirmishes in places like the South Atlantic, these were really more incidental due to the nature of naval warfare, they werent major strategic theatres.

Agreed, but other minor points to consider:

1) Britain had troops from all over the world fighting for it pre-1941. Australians in North Africa and Greece, Canadian Divisions in Britain from late 1939. That's obviously global.

Aye, and not a bad point, but to me at least, is still fundamentally a european power drawing culturally and ethnically linked european peoples (or, in cases like India, non European people under European command and governance) to primarily fight other Europeans in Europe or places very near Europe.

2) The US Navy was in a de facto state of war in the Atlantic against Germany's U-Boats from 1940 onwards, including the occupation of Iceland, so you can argue, the USA was in before 1941, plus the Flying Tigers in China.

Also a good point, also Lend Lease kicking in, though mostly all of these were support efforts rather the US being actively engaged in prosecuting any particular conflict, and werent seen as linked in part of a greater single worldwide conflict.

Shh. Germany wasn't that involved in the Spanish Civil War. Especially as Spain more or less remained out of WW2 itself.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Shh. Germany wasn't that involved in the Spanish Civil War. Especially as Spain more or less remained out of WW2 itself.

Wasn't that involed!?

I fear the Welsh education system has gone downhill!

Germany had the Condor Legion in Spain during the civil war.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Shh. Germany wasn't that involved in the Spanish Civil War. Especially as Spain more or less remained out of WW2 itself.

Wasn't that involed!?

I fear the Welsh education system has gone downhill!

Germany had the Condor Legion in Spain during the civil war.

I was only slightly joking..... I fear Scottish Comedy isn't as good as it used to be. You need more Father Ted in your life.


It was good practise for the Luftwaffe, but I would say it was seperate enough from the rest of the conflict to not be included. Maybe if one of the allied nations was officially involved I'd consider it.

For us it is the 10th of May 1940.

1939 because it opened actively belligerent relations directly between two or more, in this case three global powers. Which caused a global war due to naval engagement range being effectively as well as technically global. While that occurred from the 3rd September the absolute immediate coause of that was the invasion of poland, amnd thus WW2 start when wehrmacht troops officially crossed the border into Poland (ignoring the fact that many advance parties crossed earlier by stealth).
This occurred on 1st September 1939 and is the offical start of WW2.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
One could argue it was Dec 7/8 1941.

The reasoning behind that date being when multiple distinct local conflicts coalesce into one larger conflict with linked combatants.

Ew now there's a new perspective.

Agreed. That's actually not a bad idea to consider individual conflicts as distinct until the overt emergence of the Allies as a real force rather than a loose alliance.

Really depends on how you want to look at it.

The events of 1918 laid the groundwork for the war, not just for the Germans but the Japanese as well. A lot of people forget they were allied with the USA, Brits, French, etc. but were almost completely ignored during the aftermath as the victors carved up the spoils. This royally ticked off the Japanese, and played heavily into why they did what they did in the 30's.

 welshhoppo wrote:

It was good practise for the Luftwaffe, but I would say it was seperate enough from the rest of the conflict to not be included. Maybe if one of the allied nations was officially involved I'd consider it.

As I recall there were Allied powers sending in arms/munitions?? I could be remembering it wrong, but I thought it fairly common knowledge that Germany was fairly involved in the Spanish Civil War, but that that conflict itself became basically a "free" proving ground for new technologies during the "interwar" period.


Personally, I am in the camp that World War 1 never ended in 1918, but rather it ended in 1945. I personally think that there were simply too many smaller regional conflicts and on-going squabbles to really have considered the war over with. Combine this with the somewhat current consensus that I've seen among scholars that the Treaty of Versailles was written in such a way that it would force Germany into hostilities (as well as written in such a way that Wilson was gonna get one option or the other.... he couldn't have his cake and eat it too)


As MrMoustaffa points out... Japan was basically cut out of the Versailles talks, as were the Chinese voices (China sent thousands of workers, per treaties with UK and France to Europe to work field camps, freeing up more bodies for the front) It can well fairly easily be argued that this exclusion had huge ramifications for both Imperial Japan as well as the later Chinese Communist revolutions.

There's really two ways you can define 'begin'.

If you want to define 'begin' as 'the start of the first conflict that became a major part of the many conflicts of WWII', then the date is July 7, 1937, with the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War.

If you want to define 'begin' as 'the point at which almost all of the world, and certainly all of its major military and economic powers were involved', then that date is December 7 1941, when the US joined the war.

Both are reasonable. From a narrative history, if you want to tell the complete story of the war you really have to start with that 1937 date. But if you wanted to, say, run a wargame, you'd probably start with that latter date so players are engaged from turn 1

Really the only date you can't pick is 1st September 1939. That date is very important to the European players in the war, but being important to Europe and being the actual starting point of a world event are not the same thing.

 sebster wrote:
There's really two ways you can define 'begin'.

If you want to define 'begin' as 'the start of the first conflict that became a major part of the many conflicts of WWII', then the date is July 7, 1937, with the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War.

If you want to define 'begin' as 'the point at which almost all of the world, and certainly all of its major military and economic powers were involved', then that date is December 7 1941, when the US joined the war.

Both are reasonable. From a narrative history, if you want to tell the complete story of the war you really have to start with that 1937 date. But if you wanted to, say, run a wargame, you'd probably start with that latter date so players are engaged from turn 1

Really the only date you can't pick is 1st September 1939. That date is very important to the European players in the war, but being important to Europe and being the actual starting point of a world event are not the same thing.

You are forgetting that most European countries involved were significant colonial powers. '37 was a regional conflict. From '39 nations from all over the world were fighting, it wasn't centralised to Europe. You can hardly choose the date one country finally chose a side and joined a war that was already underway as a starting point.

 JamesY wrote:
You are forgetting that most European countries involved were significant colonial powers.

Do you actually think I'd forget that, when the colonies and former colonies that joined when fighting in Europe broke out... includes my own country?

I didn't forget it, it isn't relevant.

'37 was a regional conflict. From '39 nations from all over the world were fighting, it wasn't centralised to Europe. You can hardly choose the date one country finally chose a side and joined a war that was already underway as a starting point.

Do you know the Ship of Theseus thought experiment? A boat is in service for a very long time, old planks becomes rotted and worn and are replaced. Eventually nothing of the original boat remains. It is a thought experiment that asks when it becomes a whole new boat.

Now, it could be argued that the day that one plank of wood was replaced it's a new boat. That would be the same as arguing that the starting date for the war is 1937.

Or you could argue that once every plank of wood is replaced then it is a new boat. That would be the same as saying once the US become involved as the last major player, and the conflicts in Europe and the Pacific are linked... then it is a world war.

But what you've argued is that it is a world was once Germany is at war with Britain and France. There's no Soviet Union at this point, and no US. This like arguing that the Ship of Theseus becomes a new ship when somewhere around 55% of the boat is replaced. It's just not a sustainable answer.

1941. That is when it became a world war with the invasion of the Soviet Union and the start of the war between the US and Japan.
Before that it had mostly just been Germany vs Britain and France.
IMO, a war is a world war only when it involves most of the world's great powers.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
1941. That is when it became a world war with the invasion of the Soviet Union and the start of the war between the US and Japan.
Before that it had mostly just been Germany vs Britain and France.
IMO, a war is a world war only when it involves most of the world's great powers.

Uh huh. So if there's six major world powers (we'll include Japan), and three of them are involved in a war, while another one is involved in a different war, then you have 4/6 in the war. But you say that isn't a world war. But if one power is conquered, leaving us with 5 major powers, and then a fourth major power becomes involved... then that's definitely the starting point for the world war.

So the clarify;
4/6 definitely not a world war.
4/5 definitely this is the point when you have a world war.

It's kind of fun to see how people keep rationalising the world war as beginning when their own country joined in.

That's probably the way it's taught in school.

I'm happy to stick with 3rd Sep 1939. Before then there was some regional conflicts e.g. the Japanese and Soviets in Manchuria, and Japanese in China, but it was the declaration of war by the British that marks the real starting point of the war.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
1941. That is when it became a world war with the invasion of the Soviet Union and the start of the war between the US and Japan.
Before that it had mostly just been Germany vs Britain and France.
IMO, a war is a world war only when it involves most of the world's great powers.

Uh huh. So if there's six major world powers (we'll include Japan), and three of them are involved in a war, while another one is involved in a different war, then you have 4/6 in the war. But you say that isn't a war. But if one power is conquered, leaving us with 5 major powers, and then a fourth major power becomes involved... then that's definitely the starting point for the world war.

So the clarify;
4/6 definitely not a world war.
4/5 definitely this is the point when you have a world war.

It's kind of fun to see how people keep rationalising the world war as beginning when their own country joined in.

I was not aware the US was my own country?
Before 1941 Japan was not involved in any war with the other great powers. Japan was fighting a seperate war in Asia that started in 1937 and did not become linked to the war in Europe until 1941. So before 1941 it was only 3 of the six involved (Germany, GB, France), and after France's surrender it was just Great Britain vs Germany. I would hardly call that a world war.

Just my opinion:
3 of 6 world powers at war with each other is not yet a world war.
2 of 5 world powers at war with each other is not a world war at all.
3 of 5 world powers at war is still not a world war.
5 of 5 world powers at war with each other is most definitely a world war.
(4 of 5 or 5 of 6 world powers at war is also a world war, as in world war I)

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Really depends on how you want to look at it.

The events of 1918 laid the groundwork for the war, not just for the Germans but the Japanese as well. A lot of people forget they were allied with the USA, Brits, French, etc. but were almost completely ignored during the aftermath as the victors carved up the spoils. This royally ticked off the Japanese, and played heavily into why they did what they did in the 30's.

First, this thread has a lot of good food for thought. Kudos to the OP for starting it. I quoted the post above because while I know some have suggested 1914, I would say it was the negotiations leading up to the treaty of Versailles that marked the possible beginning. Had the peace settlement been more effective and not so punitive, would the conditions in Germany lead to the political instability and resentment that gave the Nazi's the opportunity to take the reins of government and set Germany on its fateful course? Would Japan being engaged more as a legitimate great power as well as the overall reduction in the exploitation by the colonial powers in the eastern pacific have redirected Japan's expansionist goals as well as lead to the development of a more stable and thus stronger China that would be more able to resist and thus deter an expansionist power.